Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Archive 9

RFC not showing up
I added a religion and philosophy RFC here a few days ago, but I don't see it showing up here. Did I make a mistake? Colin MacLaurin (talk) 16:00, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not an expert, but I made a few minor edits to where you included the template that I think might help. Give it some time, and we'll see if it shows up.  If not, we'll ask BetaCommand nicely for help (he understands what the bots look for).  --InkSplotch (talk) 15:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Tag old discussions?
What's the tag here? Requests for comment/Anonymous page creation is officially dead. ? Well, that's what I'm doing; fix if there's a better one. -- Kendrick7talk 22:10, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Request has not appeared on the list
I added a RFCHist template to Talk:Easter Rising at 19:33. It still has not appeared on the list at 19:58, 4 January 2008 (UTC). Scolaire (talk)
 * Sorry, I meant to post this on the list talk page. No, it is actually meant to go here.  Scolaire (talk) 20:16, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

RfC won't list
I cannot get one to list either, Talk:Gavin_Newsom. Maybe I screwed up the template, I don't know, but I re-did it twice and it still is not appearing on the list. Regards.-- 12 N oo n 2¢ 22:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Same problem at Talk:Neoplasia. Emmanuelm (talk) 16:07, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Same problem at Talk:Info-gap decision theory. I have decided to WP:IAR and manually added this item to the list. Hope I didn't offend any bot.. Zvika (talk) 14:21, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it just takes about a half day. Pundit | utter  15:58, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Problem with RFC on Chocolate Thai
I put an RFC in, for chocolate thai. See Talk:Chocolate_Thai. Several hours later, it's still not up. Is the bot that collects RFC tags not working or something, or did I do it wrong? Zenwhat (talk) 03:35, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Zenwhat, I think I wrote you, after the date fix I made to the template, that it'll be included by the bot - sorry it wasn't clear. Pundit | utter  15:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

RFC procedure
This has probably been addressed, but when i see RFC's i see more comments that i'd like to leave a "disagree" statement to then an endorse. Might be too much of a civility problem, but expressing my oppinion.--Cube lurker (talk) 02:47, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Serb propaganda
I don't see the article on the list yet. This is my first time doing this so I might have made a mistake. Could someone look into it and see why it's not listed yet? Thanks. SWik78 (talk) 16:43, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Could someone please look into this and see why it is not listed yet? I submitted the request about a week ago. Thanks. SWik78 (talk) 14:03, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I saw that there was a small formatting problem with the time section of the template. I fixed it, so perhaps that will help. Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε 21:12, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

RFC on categories.
There isn't a section in this article for it. Anyone willing to make it? &#9775; Zenwhat (talk) 07:23, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

What did I miss?
Talk:Leni_Riefenstahl isn't showing up. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Also having a problem with an RFCpolicy not showing up from WT:EPISODE. --M ASEM 17:14, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Shortcuts for WikiProjects
I'm not entirely sure if this is the best place to turn to for assistance, but I didn't get any response when I posed my question to WikiProject Southern California. I have noticed that WikiProject Southern California has two shortcuts: WP:SOCAL and WP:WPSC while WikiProject Stub Sorting uses three shortcuts: WP:SC, WP:WSS/ST, and WP:STUBS. I would like to create a shortcut for WikiProject South Carolina, but WP:SC and WP:WPSC are already taken (by projects with multiple shortcuts). Is it first come, first serve? Thanks, MoodyGroove (talk) 18:20, 17 January 2008 (UTC)MoodyGroove
 * They mostly get gobbled up that way. How about WP:SCAR or WP:SOCAR? Gwen Gale (talk) 21:36, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Gwen. I know I could come up with some other shortcut. My point is, there ought to be a mechanism for shortcuts to be transferred to a different area of Wikipedia when it is reasonable to do so. WP:SC and WP:WPSC are intuitive choices for WikiProject South Carolina, and I don't see any reason that the above captioned projects need multiple shortcuts. Due to the nature of a wiki, there's no single person to ask "hey, do you mind if I re-route this shortcut?" I could be bold and do it, but I would risk offending someone (actually I couldn't because I don't know how). I'm not sure "first come, first serve" makes a whole lot of sense. Thanks for the reply! Best, MoodyGroove (talk) 16:45, 18 January 2008 (UTC)MoodyGroove

RFC/U - Disputed process.
Requests for user conduct has been absolutely useless other than for assumptions of bad faith and a stepping stone to ArbCom for two years. Even a few ArbCom members agree. Will (talk) 16:28, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Not seeing that the use of RFC has become depreciated and this part of the official dispute resolution process. I have removed the tag. Spartaz Humbug! 16:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I see Sceptre has reverted the tag without discussing on this page. I do not feel they have consensus for their position and have reverted them again. Spartaz Humbug! 21:17, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It's being discussed on VPP. Consensus is actually forming to kill it. Will (talk) 21:30, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Section header text must be exactly same
My tag here failed initially. I compared to successful RFCstyle tags and the only difference I found was with the section header format: the successful ones have no space between == and the header text. I edited the section title accordingly, removing the offending space so that it was consistent with no space after section= in the tag. It worked. If repeatable, this should be addressed in the documentation. --Paleorthid (talk) 16:45, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

This facility is denied to IPs
I want to post a request for comment concerning the abuse of admin privileges by TerriersFan but I can't. Why? Because IPs can't create pages, and this overly-bureaucratic procedure requires the creation of a page. Never mind! TerriersFan can continue abusing his position in connection with the semi-protecting of articles, i.e. he doesn't like IPs. And please don't tell me to go and create an account! That would not get to the root of the problem identified here. 86.27.63.49 (talk) 14:56, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Reporting specific behavior on admins should be done over at Adminstrators Noticeboard - Incidents. This page is more for gaining consensus on much broader topics. --M ASEM  15:02, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, thanks for the advice. I'm on my way over there now. 86.27.63.49 (talk) 15:11, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

candidate pages vs. approved
Something that wasn't very clear was who in the process determines if a certain case has met the two-person threshold. Another trusted user that watches this page? I assumed someone else might take care of it, but it's been a couple days without any action regarding Requests for comment/MPF. If anyone could take an impartial look at that page to see if you think it's met the threshold, I'd appreciate it. Thanks! --Rkitko (talk) 21:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

RFCbot broken
Hasn't updated RFCreli page since 1/15. People have been manually updating it since then without being overwritten. Last edit by RFCbot appears to have been on 1/19, 6 days ago.... 212.227.82.218 (talk) 03:29, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

RFCbot broken
I have added an RFCbot (Pol) at the bottom of the discussion page of the article on Dick Cheney but it is now showing up in the RFC Pol list. Can someone fix this????? Ivankinsman (talk) 12:00, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to kill RFC/U
I think this should be more clearly stated, and the link provided. The discussion on whether to kill RFC/U is not on this page, but here at the Village Pump. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 04:15, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

first time editor question has a question about the Universe
Moved to Talk:Big Bang.  r speer  / ɹəəds ɹ  10:27, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Is there an article RfC archive?
Hi there, I'm trying to find any past RfCs on the article Animal testing, since these have been referred to in a current request for mediation diff. I can't find anything in the Talk:Animal testing archives. Is there some kind of central list I could refer to? Tim Vickers (talk) 22:24, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

RFC Cat
I added this to the cat article yesterday, and another editor edited the template to cause a bot error, Please be aware that this is a current RFC. Mjroots (talk) 20:12, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

RfC for Talk:Ukrainian Insurgent Army
RfC template does no appear to work Bobanni (talk) 20:54, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

AWOL
I think I filled out the template properly. But I don't see the note about the discussion in the list.

Thanks! Geo Swan (talk) 17:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Palestinian archaeology
The RfC template recently placed at Talk:Palestinian archaeology doesn't seem to be working or set up correctly. Can somebody assist? Thanks. HG | Talk 23:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

What's gone wrong?
Can someone tell me what I've done wrong with Super Smash Bros. Melee? The template won't show on the RFCsci list. Thanks. Ashnard Talk  Contribs  10:34, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Nevermind. Done now. Ashnard  Talk  Contribs  10:48, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Brain Drain
I goofed and put in some wikilinks in the section parameter my RFCecon. I'd like someone fix the link in WP:RFC/ECON for "Neutrality_and_WP:OR|Original_research_issues?|Talk:Brain drain", which should show up for Talk:Brain drain, going to the section labelled "Neutrality and Original research issues?". Kelvinc (talk) 17:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

How long does it take?
I added an RFC at Talk:History of Sumer, still nothing showing up on the RFC list. Do we have to wait for a Robot to add it? This new system is obviously confusing, it looks like everyone here asks the same question. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 21:50, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I also have same question. I listed request for RFC on Talk:Ypatingasis_b%C5%ABrys several days ago. But this entry did not appear on this list till today. Any advice is much welcome. M.K. (talk) 09:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Well I haven't reviewed those pages, but its added by an automatic Bot, so it could be the request was missing a character somewhere or that the Bot hasn't been run in a couple of days. Try pinging User:Messedrocker.  MBisanz  talk 09:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

RfC not being added
I used the following code to add a RfC, but it is not showing up:

RFCsci| section=Fresh restart on aids POV !! reason=I have stated here that a phrase should be removed, my edits have been reverted again without any rationale provided to refute my argument that it is POV. !! time= 19:57, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Is there a delay or something I should know of? If not, please feel free to tell me what I did wrong or even directly edit the code here, at the top of the syntax.

Requests for remedies - possible solution to dispute resolution scaling problems
Please review and tweak: Requests for remedies. A very simple three-step system that can make trusted, final decisions on very tricky or complex matters, based on evaluations from trusted, uninvolved users on a given case in the dispute resolution process. It does add new process, but not many layers, or particularly complex layers by any stretch of the imagination. It's built entirely around consensus and the idea of certification, and is the opposite of Votes For Banning. Please weigh in at Wikipedia talk:Requests for remedies. The community needs a way to move forward in a trusted, fair manner on high-end, complex problems that are either unworkable for normal WP:AN, WP:ANI, or WP:RFC to handle, or that the Arbitration Committee can't take on, or that the Arbitration Committee relegates back to the Community. Lawrence §  t / e  22:16, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Separate Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/User conduct
Currently Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/User conduct redirects here. I plan to remove the redirect so that it will be its own talk page. And then I will add some comments there rather than here. Sbowers3 (talk) 16:23, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Problem with RFChist tag
Hi there. I used the RFChist tag here, but the page has not yet been placed on RFChist list. Thanks in advance for your help, --KoberTalk 06:01, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Closure
Is there some procedure for closure of an RFC discussion? Generally some discussants will agree with one position, while others disagree and favour another position. That was also the situation before the RFC, so does that mean you're back at the starting point? Also, 30 days is an awfully long time, compared to, for example, the five days for AFD and the seven days for RFA. --Lambiam 18:28, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Problems getting RFC to work with Bjork article
I have just added an RFC template onto the Bjork article talk page, and the RFC bot removed it with the summary of "removing old RFC". Also, my RFC is not showing up in the RFC listing under RFC bio, and a previous RFC I made on the Bjork article a few months ago didn't work either. Can someone please help? Asarelah (talk) 17:54, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Archives of WP:RFC
The most recent archive with a link at the top of this page is number 7. It only goes to mid 2007. Where are the more recent archives?

Thanks, Wanderer57 (talk) 15:56, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Fixed (finally). No one is apparently doing this task anymore. I've done archives 8 and started 9. Personally, I think this page would benefit from letting the archives be handled by a bot since no one is doing it. Thoughts? Objections? -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 02:10, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Srbosjek article
Srbosjek see talkpage

I've been waiting for a response on some issues for few months now.Anyone?--(GriffinSB) (talk) 18:53, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

China works for Germany since 1644
Chinese Paramilitary Police Exchange.

France, England & America are exchanging Chinese Paramilitary Police who are highly trained in martial arts to attack Free-Tibet protestors in Europe, England & America.

But Germany set up funds for Free-Tibet.

So Germany is earning money from the protests in Tibet, but the Bavarian Illuminati is stolen from Buddhism.

German Aristocracy is the Corrupt World Government. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phalanxpursos (talk • contribs) 15:17, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

How?
I requests for comment, at Talk:Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic II The Sith Lords, but wasn't being anything. May I fault something. --Beyond silence 17:37, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Limits of Template Procedure
I have two redundant categories; I don't give a WP:FUCK either way, but I expect strong resistance if I would try to CFD either one of them. Since there is no Categories for making up you mind I thought an RFC seems to be the right place to talk matters through with all interested parties. However, the RFC procedure asks me to pick one place to insert the template.

Is there a way to get an RFC started without taking sides? Yes, it's a small thing, but I would not like to give up my neutrality on technical issues.

Is there a better place to have the discussion? --Yooden &#9774;
 * Forgot something: A simple WP:Merge (which I'm not even sure would work on categories) is not an option because, depending on the interpretation picked, there is a third option to make one a subcat of the other. --Yooden &#9774;

Manual RFC list addition option when bot goes AWOL?
Seems the bot is unreliable in the extreme, judging by the accounts here. I've tried to entice it to notice an RFC tag here for a couple of days now; no joy. How about a manual option? MeteorMaker (talk) 20:48, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, was apparently implemented already. Sorry for wasting everybody's valuable time. MeteorMaker (talk) 22:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * What manual option do you refer to? II  | (t - c) 17:37, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Merging in editor review
I have proposed merging editor review with RfC. Comments and opinions are welcome. Vassyana (talk) 22:52, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

"RFC error" template inserted; not clear why
Why did the RFC bot make this change from " " to "  ? I don't see anything wrong with that use of RFCsci. Eubulides (talk) 09:08, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * See User talk:Messedrocker for help with that bot.  MBisanz  talk 09:15, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Extremely shabby instructions
Is this template and this process supposed to be used at all? If yes, then improve the instructions. If no, please, remove it altogether, or put a defunct notice or something. This instruction advises to "Add ", while this instruction advises to "Add ". Finally, this set of instruction is good enough to give anyone a headache. Make it lucid, make it user-friendly. Pleeeease. Wikipedia is not edited only by techno-savvy super-geeks who may know much about bots and codes and such stuff and very little on the article entries. Sorry for the rant. But, that's really how I feel about this infernal set of instructions. Pfui. Aditya (talk • contribs) 04:43, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Bot hasn't added rfc to the list of articles yet
I added a rfc to the homeschooling and List of homeschoolees pages, but the bot hasn't added them to the list yet. Is there usually a delay, or did I do it incorrectly? Amillion (talk) 23:11, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Bumble Bee ,descriptions of nest,etc.
Hello

Looking up data of Bumblebee's I was disapointed in the description of nest ,etc. It took me 20 minutes and another Instructor at Rio Hondo College (Whittier,Ca.) to give W. this new information that ought to be added!I have a nest in the backyard a few feet from where I sit. The Bumble bee's create holes in the trunks for,"nest" and they can make a clean perfect hole to enter/exit. I was quite suprized that a tree trunk was not in the W. Dictionairy listing such. It is not confirmed if it is a red pepper tree or not yet it is suprizing how the bumbee's capitolize the nest.The amount of wood chips(sawdust) from there excavating are used as ,"wings" above and below the entry/exit whole,I can only surmise there are for cooling. Bumblebees are amazing creatures and it feels good to keep the nest going. I had one (black) bumble bee hover in front of me less than a foot away in what seemd like it was checking me out when I began to sit near the nest. I did not move yet I looked at the Bee and felt,"I would be quite displeased if I was stung! I agree with the social part of the definetion. I hope you can add tree trunks for nest. Thank you & have a good day.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.233.58.100 (talk) 20:08, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

User:RFC bot is down?
The contribution list shows many days between runs. The last run was 01:28 UTC on 7 May. Perhaps someone who knows about the bot might give be kind enough to give it a look? EdJohnston (talk)

Please someone fix this
Talk:Eight Belles. The bot did something and I have no idea how to fix the template. Thanks. JohnClarknew (talk) 21:40, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The dispute is now resolved, so ignore this, and thanks. JohnClarknew (talk) 08:24, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

possible RFC template problem
I've been attempting an RFC from Talk:Satellite High School. The template creates information nicely, but several attempts by the bot to process the request have failed. It would be nice if there were more of a positive connection between the request and the bot - that is, if the template appears to work, the bot has no trouble with the info. I realize this is simpler than it sounds! :) Student7 (talk) 15:30, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Not showing up on list
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Anti-Americanism#RFC:_Degeneracy_Thesis Life.temp (talk) 20:24, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


 * This is till not working. Can somebody fix it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Life.temp (talk • contribs) 02:44, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I did a few minor things to try and fix. Bot should pick it up on the next run. If it revisits and throws an error again, come update here. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 02:54, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Life.temp (talk • contribs) 03:16, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

RFC bot messed up Chiropractic entry in RFCsci list
This change to Talk:Chiropractic induced this bogus change to Template:RFCsci list. The latter change is bogus because it has:
 * It is my opinion that [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title

where it should have had:
 * It is my opinion that this change was for the better. Please give your opinion on the matter.

Evidently the bot mishandles "=" in the reason. I repaired the bug in the template by hand but expect that the bot bug will undo the repair. Can this bot bug be fixed, please? (I'll leave a note on User talk:Messedrocker.) Eubulides (talk) 22:38, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * RFC tagging instructions, transcluded onto all the lists, states that ! and = cannot be used outside the context of tag structure. MessedRocker (talk) 18:53, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Link Error, Active RfCs by topic area
in the Active RfCs by topic area box in the Instructions area, the watch links point to the template page rather than the actual RFC page. I'll fix this myself if no one else does; I'm just hesitating (and commenting) because there may be some arcane wiki thing going on here that I don't know about, and don't want to mess up. :-) --Ludwigs2 (talk) 19:16, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

WTH
The RFCBot keeps rejecting this:

== Trivia and unnecessary repetition ==

Can someone tell me what the heck is wrong with it? Or if the problem is with the bot, how do I get it to go 'way and lee' me alone? RedSpruce (talk) 20:07, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


 * the only things I can see that vary from the template are (a) you have a space after 'RFCbio' (wiki's can be picky) (b) you don't have 'reason=' before 'Repetition in recent edits'. --Ludwigs2 (talk) 21:55, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Problems
I'm trying to start a RFC at Talk:Miss Universe 2008. I can't figure out whether the template just isn't working properly, or whether its supposed to render how it has (I've never used this process before). Can someone help me out by checking it? Cheers. PageantUpdater talk • contribs  10:26, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Appeal - please help
It is high time that the abuses against the unjustly banned user "Gibraltarian" were dealt with rationally and fairly. My ban was brought about by a troll user's malicious complaint, and he continually vandalised any words I tried to post in my defence. I appeal to any admin or Arbcom member with a sense of justice to please contact me on a_gibraltarian@hotmail.com to discuss the matter. Many thanks

DO NOT REVERT.
 * Please go to WP:APB for instructions on appealing your block to the arbitration committee or the community. --Thinboy00's  sockpuppet  alternate account 23:40, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Template problem at Talk:Alan_Hovhaness
I'm trying to get an RFC listed. I've used

but I keep getting the template replaced with an error message from the RFC bot. I can't see what's wrong with the template and the error message offers no clues. Originally the section title was enclosed in quotation marks, and I thought that might be the problem and removed them, but still no joy. What am I missing? Dpbsmith (talk) 10:23, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Closing request
This RfC has been open for over a month with nothing of substance added after the first week. I therefore kindly ask for the procedure to be closed and archived. Guido den Broeder (talk) 23:12, 8 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Probably wrong place for this request if I understand the box at top of this page :-) Instead see Requests for comment - seems a RfC gets automatically closed one month after last activity by the RfC bot (whatever that is). David Ruben Talk 22:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * However User:RFC bot gives no further details, so could someone familar with the bot help clarify the vague explanation as to RfC closure/archiving :-) David Ruben Talk 22:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

RfC/U and evidence - policy suggestions
This is a policy suggestion (apologies for its length). For sometime RfC/Us have tended towards referendums on the persons behind the accounts rather than being a case about proven on-wiki user conduct issues as evidenced by diffs. This has "divided the community" by hosting unprovabale personalized arguments. This not what wikipedia is for. It is also discrediting the RfC process.

Even if 2 editors (or 3 or 4) agree there is a problem with another user but don't provide evidence proving there is a substantive case to answer the RfC/U will look, to an uninvolved user, like it is made in bad faith.

For the sake of the RfC/U cases themselves and for the sake of this process's future we need to set hard parameters for all RfC/U comments and cases. The suggestions below are not (as far as I'm aware) novel ones. We already successfully implement stricter versions of these suggestions for Checkuser requests.


 * 1) Evidence must clearly demonstrate policy violations without interpretation - evidence needing interpretation should be sent to ArbCom (especially in relation to misuse of sources).
 * 2) Some method of measuring RfC/U evidence needs to be put in place before an RfC is accepted. RfC/Us are covered by WP:AGF and WP:NPA.  When diffs are clearly mis-interpreted by those bringing a case the RfC looks like it is being filed in bad faith - even if a plurality of users endorse it WP:ILIKEIT already explains that that is not good enough.  (However we do need to strike a balance here so that it does not create undue instruction creep.)
 * 3) Some sanction for spurious (rather than inadequately evidenced) RfC/Us should be enforced. Spurious and pointy use of this process are disruptive and bad faith acts.  I'd suggest an Immediate level 4 template for "disruptive use of the RfC process" cover by the policies of WP:AGF and WP:POINT.
 * 4) As with my first suggestion we should have clear guidance whether off-wiki matters may be discussed here. As I understand previous ArbCom rulings they will look at things like this.  However I would suggest due to copy-right issues around releasing emails; due to the complicated relationship of this project with sites about it; and considering ArbCom's explicit wish that evidence of off-site meat-puppetry be passed on to them directly, that RfC/U is not a venue for these issues.
 * 5) Nemo contra factum suum venire ("No man can contradict his own deed"). Tendentious defense is tendentious editing.  When a diff clearly and unambiguously shows an editor being incivil, flamebaiting, soapboxing, vandalizing, lying, etc, then they should not defend the indefensible.  Admittedly it has become a rarity to see unambiguous diffs at RfC/U but when that is the case some measure should be taken to prevent ... trolling.

Basically I'd suggest that some sort of uninvolved clerk/admin roster should be set-up to patrol RfCs (to check evidence and enforce WP:CIVIL on them). Secondly, after two users have endorsed an RfC the evidence should be checked before it is fully opened and accepted - a checking period should be introduced. Thirdly sanctions (warnings issued only by the rostered RfC-admins and clerks) should be created and explained clearly on the RfC page.

We take matters of privacy seriously at RFCU - it already has a clearly defined set of parameters for when a check can take place. Since AGF is one of the 5 pillars of this project we should take it seriously too. Perhaps only time can heal the divide within the community but we can certainly reduce the level of pointy and personalized RfC/Us by setting parameters for what and how RfC/Us can take place. This would achieve two things: a) it should improve RfCs by making sure there is evidence for them; and b) it will reduce the poisonous atmosphere created by inappropriate (and inappropriate use of) RfC/Us. WP:RFC is part of dispute resolution not dispute escalation.

These suggestions are not prefect - I don't assume that I can solve all the community's problems or the processes problems with these ideas - so if anyone has any thoughts on these suggestions please comment-- Cailil  talk 13:33, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd like to suggest an additional point. On the receiving end of an RfC/U, it has troubled me greatly that commenting users tend to make a lot of assumptions (good and bad faith alike) about the user's motivations and thoughts. It seems to me that this is not very helpful. The user is a human being, so why don't commenting users ask questions instead? Isn't a better understanding of each other key to getting along better? Guido den Broeder (talk) 14:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Request
I have been recommended to leave a note here, concerning my urgent request here:. Thank you in advance for the trouble. --BF 19:20, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Nationality in Biographies of Living Persons
A couple of comments on a biography of a living person have caused me concern. The editor in question thinks it is acceptable to add a nationality to an article, where the only information available is a place of birth. I fundamentally disagree and think this is a very sloppy practise. A place of birth does not define nationality, if that is all the source says that is all that should go into the article. In response to adding a tag, the same editor removed it as "when there is something at the top of the page saying the whole article is unreferenced" there is no need to add one. Is this acceptable practise? Looking through guidance I can find nothing to say that it is. I thought I would ask for comments informally before starting an RFC. Justin talk 11:57, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * FWIW, I would find no argument with the idea that it's not needed but it's good to add. It seems particularly unhelpful to remove such tags: That puts the burden of checking for the top-level tag on you, so that you may add the  tag after the top-level one is removed, if it ever IS removed.  Better to allow people like you to add those tags as they notice the need.  Jmacwiki (talk) 01:55, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Need a cold fusion on RfCsci
There is a second cold fusion RfC that needs to be included on the RfCsci template. Thanks. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:49, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: Neuroplasticity and Irrelevant Links
I've been trying to add a topic to this list but it hasn't shown up. I see that others have this problem as well. I've never used the template before, but I believe that I have used it correctly. Please, if you will, check the bottom of the discussion on the Neuroplasticity page and add it to this list. I sincerely believe that one of the authors has added something irrelevant (The Tetris Effect), since it appears nowhere in the scientific literature on the subject. I believe that he has a theory about its relevance, unsupported by scientific study. Theories have their place, but not on this page. Thank you.23:53, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Bot malfunction? on RfC at Tucker Max
The initial RfC tag was done improperly, and RfCBot made an edit on the page saying so. The tag was fixed, but RfCBot has not been back to the article to explain any further problems with the tag nor added it to the RfC Bio list. 03:24, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * for some reason, the bot is referring the RfC link to a previous RfC and not the current one. the current RfC is at the bottom of the page and involves whether an anonymous blog constitutes a valid source. can anyone offer some advice? Theserialcomma (talk) 23:30, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

RFC not picked up
Hi. My rfc for Talk:Evolution_as_theory_and_fact does not seem to have been picked up by the bot. --Ezra Wax (talk) 22:56, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

What to do about an unlisted user-conduct RfC?
I don't know the procedure, but I see that Requests for comment/Fowler&fowler‎ is not listed at WP:RfC/USER. Can somebody with experience in these matters please do what's necessary? -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 15:39, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It's just a matter of putting it under the candidate section. I did so just now.  --C S (talk) 23:49, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Style RFC not getting listed
I added an RFC tag to Template talk:Nobel icon nearly 24 hours ago and it has not yet been listed at Template:RFCstyle list. Did I do something wrong? Thanks, --Clubjuggle T/ C 15:32, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * See User:MessedRocker.  MBisanz  talk 12:16, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. Am I looking for anything specific that's already on that page, or do you mean that's where I should look for an answer? Thanks, --Clubjuggle T/ C 15:47, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * He's the guy who runs the bot who lists the RFCs.  MBisanz  talk 15:48, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks. I've posted there as well but also posted here in case someone saw an obvious problem with my listing, or knew a way to get the issue listed in the meantime. Thanks, Clubjuggle T/ C 15:49, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

My edits to RfC/U
A little while ago I made a couple edits to the RfC/U page that were reverted due to no discussion taking place. It seemed fair enough, so I'm posting here to explain the edits. The first thing was to put myself as an RfC/U Coordinator. I have basically been handling the cases for a few weeks now, and it seemed that users have started accepting me as the go-to guy for matters regarding these. As a result I thought I would make it official. Secondly, I tried merging the admin pages. This stems from the Elonka RfC, which had a little bit of administrative issues involved, but 95% of it was editorial. I figured maybe it would be easier to just combine the two, but that would certainly be something to discuss. Wizardman 02:19, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't mind having a contact person for this sort of thing, in other venues like wikiprojects it seems very useful, so thanks for volunteering. I do think there should be some difference between Admin and non-Admin RfCs, just because the type of behavior and the range of remedies requested, will vary greatly and predictably.  MBisanz  talk 02:21, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think there's a need for an RfC/U "co-ordinator"; all actions, including deletion of uncertified RfC's and archiving of closed RfC's, should be done by consensus rather than an individual, and to suggest an appointed individual has decision-making power over these would be incorrect and lead to disruption. Furthermore, the merging of admins and users is not a good move, in my opinion, as they address distinct issues and proceed in very different manners. If there's overlap, it should be filed in the admins section, especially when a core issue is the administrative application of arbitration remedies. Daniel (talk) 02:23, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * My major concern is you appointing yourself RFC/U coordinator. You can't just do that. One person shouldn't oversee RFC/U - it will mean that we only get one interpretation of a result of an RfC. I like the idea of a committee of users who close RfC's and judge the consensus of them, but that's for more than one person, and not decided by someone who edits the pages a lot. If I'm being honest, I'd like to see people who do more work deciphering the RfC's and stating clearly what the RfC shows on closure, rather than someone who simply closes the RfC and make things look tidy.  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 02:24, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. We have too many Coordinators already. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:40, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't care if Wizardman is "coordinator" or not. It doesn't give him any more or less ability or "power" than he (or anyone else) already has. Though I can see the benefit of having him list himself as someone to "goto" concerning this process. (Do we have any other volunteers?)
 * As for merging, the problem for me is that unless the concerns involve "the tools" or associated responsibilities, then admins should be listed under the editor sections (an admin being "just another editor"). If it does involve the above, then I think that that should indeed be listed separately. - jc37 07:50, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * As it is, multiple editors (including myself), as well as administrators assist in managing the page, and RFC/U in general (and each of those users have been contacted in the same way - it doesn't mean we make drastic moves to become RFC coordinators or have extra authority). Frequently enforcing already existing norms, whether it's formatting, archiving, guidelines etc. probably only gives rise to the mere title as "an RFC regular" - nothing more. On the other issue, there are reasons why admin and editor RFCs and bots are kept separate - those reasons still carry the same level of weight and have not been eliminated, so there should be no change to the current format of the RFC/U page. Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:25, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll drop the merge discussion, since after sleeping on it I realized it was a stupid idea. As for a coordinator or something, if not me then I at least think there should be some sort of body that handles it, else the Alastair Haines case may still be stuck in RfC instead of at RFAR. Wizardman 21:05, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Not quite - the parties knew where to go next, when to consider going there etc., and the RFC should've concluded and been archived upon the RFAR being accepted, or upon a sanction being imposed by an admin or the community (on conduct that even remotely touches on the concerns at the RFC) because that's how it's been done to date. I've mostly agreed with your conclusion or closing/archiving to an extent - but always keep in mind that ample time should be given for outside input, even if it's a month since the last endorse in the RFC. That didn't quite happen in the Haines RFC, but in a clear case like that, it didn't need to wait so much either. Ncmvocalist (talk) 00:54, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * A good point. I've noticed that about 95% of the comments tend to come within the first week or two, and after that there's only a little bit more that's generally added, hence why my closes probably appear to be quick. Wizardman  01:44, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't agree with that percentage, but certainly I'd say 'a lot'. The desired level of outside input can arrive up to 2 months after the RFC has been opened to be sure about the consensus. Anyway, whenever there are objections, there'd be reverts and/or modifications I think, so as long as you note them for the future, there's no worries. :) (And of course, there've been none so far on that.) Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:54, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion for improvement
What I'd like to see is a group of admins who are familiar with the process volunteering to oversee things. People complain that RFC/U has no teeth - well, I'd like to see the group of volunteering admins judging the consensus about what the RfC actually says and state it clearly to the user who's conduct is questioned. They make it clear what the consensus is saying at the top of the page, and inform the user in question of the findings of the RfC. If the consensus is that the user in question has not done anything wrong, then they also say that. It'd be more like an AfD style RfC, with firm decisions made from them (obviously without the time frame however). It's important that the person closing the RfC states what the community find problematic about the behaviour, and what changes the community would like to see in the users editing - they obviously can't enforce this though, and if the user were to carry on the problematic behaviour, ArbCom or the community could deal with it using sanctions.  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 16:44, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Conditional support - free-for-alls must not be made. Sceptre (talk) 16:48, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * They wouldn't - they'd be closed out propoerly and the true consensus gained. In the case of Elonka (which I sure is the reason why you're upset at the minute), this would probably closed out as a clear consensus that she did nothing wrong (although it would probably run a little longer).  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 16:53, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not actually upset - you're assuming I am. The MFD nomination and the subsequent disputed tag was only partially influenced by Elonka's RFC. Seeing as no progress has been made to improve RFC/U since its last MFD nomination, I was contemplating another round soon. The spiral Elonka's RFC has gone down only accelerated the wait, and it's only poor timing it was nominated now. Sceptre (talk) 17:01, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, as I said - I hope a new "system" like I suggested would put improve the whole process a lot, and the problems with the Elonka RfC would be fixed by that.  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 17:05, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Anything that replaces this system would be better: possible harm beats definite harm any day. Sceptre (talk) 17:07, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Procedural note: The use of MfD in the past to rid the project of certain features, while at times effective, was not the best course of action. MfD is for deletion discussions regarding certain project-space pages. There is no need to delete RfC/U or RfC when there are other options available (deprecating them / marking them historical). All of which can be accomplished through talk page discussion, village pump discussion, or perhaps an RfC. But MfD is not an appropriate forum, despite its history. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:15, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

According to my opinion the Ruthenians cannot be called Ucranians.

The roots of the Ruthenias are more ancient then of the Ucranians. The cultural difference is too strong between the ucranians and the Ucrainians. Soon I will continue the discussion.

With kind regards,

Nataliya Veresh —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.77.0.190 (talk) 17:58, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Links to prior MfDs please
I expected to find them at the top of the page. --Ronz (talk) 16:30, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Nevermind. --Ronz (talk) 20:01, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

RFC/U disputed, again
Seeing as MFD is (to my surprise, given the amount of times process has been nominated there before) the incorrect forum for getting rid of a process:

I am renominating this process page for deletion/historicalisation because the instructions left by the closer of the MFD nine months ago have not been followed. Because the page details a process, and not a policy or guideline, it cannot qualify for the use of disputedtag, and as such MFD is used per precedent for processes such as the CSN and Esperanza.

El C, in closing, noted that RFC/U is problematic through its lack of enforcement, but also noted that the lack of RFC would cause ANI to become slightly busier. He also urged the community to reform the process and discount any superfluous RFCs - neither of which, have not happened: for the former, requests for remedies was proposed as a sanction-carrying alternative to RFC/U, and was rejected; for the latter, several recent RFCs (one including myself) were filed with lack of proper certification but was still kept.

Perhaps the most worrying thing about the process is that one of its creators, User:Jdforrester, admitted that it's gone downhill from his concept into a "hate-fest free-for-all" and hardly resolves disputes, and subsequently supported archival. An example of this is Elonka's current RFC, which I made a similar comment that it's "gone from what may have been a valid dispute into an ugly incivility-creating free-for-all focusing on anything Elonka may have done wrong ever".

Nine months down the line, nothing has been done to improve the process, despite repeated urgings by several admins. Thus, I support the disuse of the process as a really bad idea. Sceptre (talk) 16:44, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * See above section "" - I'm hoping this could help the process a lot.  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 16:46, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * RFC/U does have lack of enforcement and judgment, but that's exactly what's been trying to get fixed recently. If one's gonna pick a time to MfD or tag this, this isn't the time. Wizardman  20:49, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Template system disables listing RFCs in more than one subject area?
This seems to be a pretty serious flaw in this template system? Articles were always allowed to be listed in more than one subject area, and ought to be in order to attract discussants from relevant topics. For what reason should they not? —Centrx→talk &bull; 05:33, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

RfC not showing up
Hello, I did an at both Talk:Eurasian otter & Talk:European Badger, but Eurasian otter is not showing up on the RfC list. Would someone please fix whatever I did to screw it up. Rgrds. --Tombstone (talk) 12:34, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Second request = Can someone please fix my screw up so Talk:Eurasian otter shows up on the RfC page. I cannot see what I did wrong with the template. Rgrds. --Tombstone (talk) 14:28, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

✅. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:22, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

RFC disappeared
I placed an RFC (for RFCpol) on the Talk:John Michell (writer) page. This can be read in this edit. It went through successfully and appeared on the RFCpol page, as evidenced here. Unfortunately, subsequent edits have caused the RFC to disappear altogether from the RFCpol page, and a notice to appear on the disputed Talk:John Michell (writer) page stating that "A user has requested comment on this page, but there is an error in the RFC template."

The edit in which I posted four points in an effort to establish verifiability have also disappeared. Please could someone intervene to reinstate the RFC, so that discussion can begin, outside of the context of an edit war - thanks. The text of the RFC is neutral, and states: "There is a dispute about whether or not to include a request on the Discussion page for full bibliographical details of the pamphlet The Hip-Pocket Hitler, authored by John Michell; and whether or how to mention his relationship with the fascist philosophy of author Julius Evola. An edit war has broken out, and comments are requested." If someone wishes to assert that Michell's relationship with Evola is as a non-fascist who simply wrote a non-supportive essay for publication in the first (deluxe and limited-run) English edition of Evola's work Men Among the Ruins, and who shares both a small-press publisher and a political label with Evola ('Radical Traditionalist'), and that nothing more is reasonably sayable about the relationship, even despite Michell's authorship of The Hip-Pocket Hitler, they are perfectly entitled to do so. However there is surely no good reason to remove the RFC, part of the purpose of which is precisely to elicit such comments (as well as from those who might then reasonably point out that Michell's introduction to Evola was very highly supportive), should anyone care to make them. A reasonable request for discussion should, if the system is to work properly, initiate a reasonable discussion. Let the process begin! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.84.204.125 (talk) 07:11, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * User 'SageMab' keeps fiddling with the RFC posted on the said Talk page. Please could someone do something about this, e.g. issue a temporary block while the RFC receives comments - thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.84.204.125 (talk) 16:09, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Please post this at WP:HD or WP:AN instead of here.  MBisanz  talk 16:12, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

RfC not coming up
I set up last night an RfC for Mike Comrie at Talk:Mike Comrie, but it's not showing up... can someone take a look at it and figure out what I've done wrong here? Tabercil (talk) 17:50, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Second request... can someone please take a look and set the RfC up right? Tabercil (talk) 01:10, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Also not coming up for ENom; originally added 22 Aug and re-added 23 Aug when first placement didn't "take". Thirdbeach (talk) 20:25, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * eNom now appears on the RfC list, but Mike Comrie does not (and nobody has gotten back to me to say they've intervened manually). Still looks to me like a problem with the bot code. Thirdbeach (talk) 19:58, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Failed RfC/U: What's next?
What happens if agreements can't be found in an RfC/U such as this one?

We have an agenda-driven editor (author of a self-published book on a novel medical idea). He is barred from editing articles on the subject of his book because of COI (it only took two or three COINs and a promised from an admin to block him for any further violation). The editor refuses to edit in semi-related or unrelated areas (possibly because his "improvements" get promptly reverted), and is making a pest of himself on his favorite article's talk page and his user talk page (currently featuring an essay on "The Motivations, Strategies, and Tactics of my Critics", which prompted this RfC/U). His latest schtick is that I'm clearly a biased editor because I refused his demands to demonstrate my editing standards in an article of his choosing. (I recently topped 20,000 edits (per preferences); I think I've got enough of a track record that anyone could figure out what my normal article standards are, but he insists that none of the hundreds of articles I've previously worked on will do.)

We are not going to reach a consensus here. I don't believe he's able to grasp the basics of collaborative efforts or will ever understand how disruptive he is. But I don't know what happens next, and there's no information on this page.

A successful RfC/U should end with a custom-tailored agreement that the subject understands and that everyone can live with. But what do you do at the end of a failed RfC/U? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:28, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Haven't looked at the RFC in question, but if the concerns are found to be legitimate by third party users, then it's likely you need to present the problem either to the community (WP:ANI or WP:AN) or to ArbCom WP:RFArb to take binding action. Ncmvocalist (talk) 00:26, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Despite WP:RFC, an RfC/U has to be closed manually, correct? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:13, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Correct, and it should be by an uninvolved party.  MBisanz  talk 19:20, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thus? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:39, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure.  MBisanz  talk 20:54, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

RfC listing procedure is troublesome
Lots of people fail to use the template correctly, it appears. I have no idea. I put a template RFCsci on Talk:Wilderness Diarrhea and it appears there correctly but not on the list. What am I doing wrong. Why is this such a common problem?Calamitybrook (talk) 20:52, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * It did not work because you did not follow the instructions. Instead of typing , you typed  .  Let me suggest that you look closely at the example given on this page and try again.
 * Alternatively, you can post a note at a related WikiProject, such as WikiProject Medicine, Disaster management, or Backpacking. A questions at any of those projects might actually be more appropriate than an RfC on the whole article.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:54, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The current listing procedure is pointless. We should be posting RfCs manually, and taking them down manually. That way they would show up on watchlists, and people would be forced to glance over the existing ones periodically. The bot doesn't add any value. II  | (t - c) 23:57, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Start? That was the old method.  I do think it worked better...  GRBerry 00:04, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * So you think it would work better if it involved multiple end-user steps, like setting up an AfD? (Paste this template into the article.  Click here.  Edit the page name manually if it's the second AfD.  Write a description.  Use this edit summary.  Click someplace else.  Paste a different template.  Use this other edit summary...)
 * The existing RfC system works fine for me, and I don't think that a manual system is likely to improve matters. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:57, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


 * You've failed to engage any of my arguments, especially the most important one: when a RFC is put up manually, it shows up on the watchlist. The current RFC template is extremely confusing. You don't automatically know if you've done it right because the bot comes around later. I've done it a couple times, and each time I found it to be extremely irritating. Worse, I got no extra feedback. The RFCs that I did generated no extra comments, making them pointless. I have every RFC category watchlisted. I get no notifications on my watchlists.


 * We already use edit summaries and write descriptions with the current procedure. I don't know what you're talking about, really, so actually, I can't engage your comment. II  | (t - c) 07:21, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you have your watchlist set to ignore bot edits? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:21, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I changed it when you made that comment, thanks. All I'm seeing is the same thing I saw before I ignored bot edits: updated template pages which say there's such ans such number of discussions active. I want a notification each time a RFC gets listed. I have every single one of the pages active. Have you ever actually seen the WP:RFC/A page (or one of the subpages) actually on your watchlist when someone puts up a RFC? I would do a test RFCpolicy here, but I dread working with that template. A testament to how little attention people pay to the WP:RFC/A page is evident in that the WP:RFC/LANG section has a mistaken edit from the 21st of August. In fact, before a month ago or so, the RFC page didn't even link to WP:RFC/A or any of its important subpages anywhere. It linked to, bizarrely, WP:RFC/U at the top, a testament, again, to the obsessiveness with which Wikipedia revolves around politics, name-calling, backslapping, and other bullshit. I changed it. II  | (t - c) 17:42, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Then you're getting what's available. You have to have both bot and minor edits shown.  The bot doesn't always edit the page separately for each addition or removal.  It makes several updates at once, like this.  If you want to see what it did, you have to look at the diffs.  Note that it never edits the page to do nothing (e.g., just to report the current number), so if it's in your watchlist, there's been a change.
 * You could suggest to the bot's owner that the edit summary be expanded. S/he might be willing to change Update, 12 current discussions to Update, 2 RfCs ended, 12 current discussions.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:24, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Listing in more than one subject area
Since no one responded to this problem with the template system, and the old system was simple and worked well, I am going to revert to the old system without the templates. —Centrx→talk &bull; 15:56, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. —Centrx→talk &bull; 15:24, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The "watch" links at Requests for comment still point to the templates you deleted. —Angr 16:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * So I'm nobody today? This is a major change affecting dozens of pages.  Your deletion has broken several pages and the instructions are now wrong.  Please reverse your changes and make a proper proposal to the entire community.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:42, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Your comment ignores entirely and is irrelevant to the problem I raised a month ago and again last week. This is a change the affects Request for comment and subpages, and the instructions are changed to reflect the template change. —Centrx→talk &bull; 18:19, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * My comment clearly states my opposition to removing the template-based system. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:58, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of content by the request from the original writer
Hello! I am a wiki user from Hong Kong. I would like to know that could I require a deletion of content if I am the main writer of that content even there are some minor changes by other users in an particular article? For example, I am the main writer of an article about a bus company and I contribute many details like the history about it. However, there are some minor correction about spelling mistakes by other users and later on I don't want to have the details shown on that article. Do I have the right to delete that history content? --Ferrischan (talk) 07:33, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * There do not appear to be any bus companies in your contribution history? —Centrx→talk &bull; 15:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It is just an example. The main point is that do I have the right to delete the content which is mainly contributed by me although there are some minor changes by other users? Thanks for your comment!--Ferrischan (talk) 03:51, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Technically, the answer is no. Your contributions are associated with an irrevocable license and you have no right to delete your contributions.
 * Having said that, any editor may change any article, so long as the change "improves" the article. For this purpose, Wikipedia generally accepts any plausible definition of improvement.  Making the article more concise or giving less attention given to a minor aspect is an improvement.  Similarly, removing unsourced/unverifiable information is also an improvement.
 * Of course, any other editor could change it back to the previous version if they think the previous version was better. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:41, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * If you are the primary author (other changes are all minor) and the article is something that meets the criteria for deletion or speedy_deletion, you can certainly put in a deletion request and see what happens. -- Ludwigs 2  02:09, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

RfC changes
I see that a lot of the RfC templates were suddenly deleted, so there's redlinks all over the wiki at the moment. Was there a discussion about this, and if so, could someone please point me at it? Thanks, Elonka 16:05, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I saw the same thing and it doesn't make sense. Maybe the deleting admin didn't realize they were infrequently used.  I've queried Messedrocker since his bot is the one who would read those templates.  MBisanz  talk 16:06, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Looking at Centrx's comments on the talkpage above, it appears he may have just decided to take things into his own hands and change the system by himself. --Elonka 17:05, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * That was pretty premature. II  | (t - c) 17:35, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I waited more than four weeks. This is simply a revert to the old system, not an invention. —Centrx→talk &bull; 18:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * There was no discussion. There was a complaint from an editor that misunderstood the directions for using the RFC template.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:43, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * There was no misunderstanding. These templates do not support listing RfCs in multiple categories. I raised this issue on August 8, with no response. I then stated my intentions to correct this problem on August 29. —Centrx→talk &bull; 18:12, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Centrx, it's one thing to be bold, and it's another to make a major change to a widely-used system on Wikipedia, without consensus. Please reconsider your actions here, especially as you used administrator access to do this, and no one is agreeing with your change. --Elonka 19:10, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * This system is confined to RfC and the change reverts to a functional system that was used for years. No one has presented any solution to the faults of the automated template system, which others evidently object to, or why it should continue to be used. I can revert these changes, which are numerous only in terms of the number of edits necessary because of the rigmarole that is RfC with the templates, but it would be a waste to do so for no reason, and when no one had any issue with the change for a month. Also, administrator access was not used to make this change; the adjunct pages I deleted for housekeeping can be restored separately, but they would be useless. —Centrx→talk &bull; 19:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Hm, looks like Centrx didn't even bother to ask the bot owner to implement the feature he wanted. Or even to point out that he was making the bot unnecessary.  Not exactly a stellar effort to get any consensus, is this?  Centrx, can you identify any editor that supports your change?  WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:01, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I advertised on the relevant talk page. If there was any objection to this change, someone would have made it on this talk page once in that month. The last time I made a major change to RFC, I advertised in all the places you might think, and received no response except a litany of "me-too". Can you identify any reason why this change is not right? —Centrx→talk &bull; 20:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Because plenty of people are perfectly happy with the existing system, which is being used in dozens of articles without major problems. To make an analogy here, it's sort of like you posted at the talkpage of WP:V and said, "I think this is a bad policy", then when no one replied a month later, you went ahead and deleted the entire thing.  There are some cases where it's okay to be bold, and there are other massive parts of Wikipedia where a simple case of "no one replied to my comment" is not sufficient to say that there's consensus. Administrators are expected to have the judgment to be able to tell the difference.  If someone genuinely wants to change the RfC system, post at the Village Pump, bring it up at WP:AN, make it clear that if no one objects, you are going to proceed.  But don't just assume that silence implies consent, when dealing with something that's used in so many different parts of the project.  Now, as for the actual proposed change, I have to say that I like the current template system since it makes it relatively easy to file an RfC.  Easier even than an AfD, which requires chasing through multiple different pages.  I do think the template system could be even easier to use though.  For one, there's very little feedback if the template is used incorrectly.  For another, it's difficult to tell in a watchlist, when there's a new request posted.  Even if I have the actual include template on my watchlist, all I see is "template updated".  Better would be if there were an edit summary that went into detail about the latest changes. --Elonka 00:13, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * A comment at WP:V would have received a response, because it is a "massive part of Wikipedia", but RFC is not and did not receive a response for that reason. The analogous situation at WP:V would be a mere change in the policy, not a deletion. Changing WP:RFC is not a big change and it works perfectly fine without the bot. —Centrx→talk &bull; 16:21, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Listing pages in multiple categories can be done with the use of additional templates. For example, a matter that covers both the arts and science can use the RFCmedia tag and the RFCsci tag. This is a practice I've seen used many times. I do admit, though, that the syntax can be very confusing to someone not accustomed to the workings of wiki syntax, and so I will see what I can do to make it easier while maintaining backwards compatibility. --harej 00:16, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The template displayed on the talk pages is already massive and ugly. It may work if the templates are reduced to a single, simple one-line sentence without images. —Centrx→talk &bull; 16:21, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * There is no need to maintaining backwards compatibility. Just create new templates the old ones will fade away when the RfCs that use them end. editors who wish to publish an RfC will not care how complicated the internal syntax is so long as the parameters that they need to enter when calling the template are kept clean and simple (few in number with clear names). I would have thought an outer skin named after the listing for the RFC, with one or two parameters the first the text the second (if needed and can not be auto-generated by the bot that does the listing, the date tilders). Then make it clear in the instructions on this project page that multiple listings means multiple templates. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 10:18, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Use the template system (not the list system). I think the template system is a vast improvement over the old list system and that the template system should be reinstated immediately. Arguments such as "complicated syntax" and "massive and ugly" are valid arguments, but listing was simpler with a one stop template (less steps to follow and get wrong). I say fix the template if there is a problem don't go back to the old complicated system. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 10:06, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * BTW. I came here to ask where the list of templates mentioned in had gone inRequests_for_comment, and to comment that the new/old instruction "In the relevant topic area, listed below, link to that section on the Talk page." is confusing as the list is to the right not below. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 10:06, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Protection?
Why is Requests for comment/Art, architecture, literature and media protected? -- Ned Scott 03:41, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The relevant edit says "(Protected Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Art, architecture, literature and media: Not a DR forum [edit=sysop:move=sysop])". I don't know what DR means, but perhaps you could ask the admin that protected it.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:30, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Seems it was just overlooked when the templates were merged back with the main page listings. -- Ned Scott 04:28, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Bot listing?
I don't know anything about the use-non-use of the bot, but can someone who knows how it works get it to list Editing restrictions/Civility restriction RFC on the policy RFC page? If the solution is something easy or something I did wrong, please let me know so I can avoid messing that up in the future. Protonk (talk) 04:39, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It seems the bot only works on talk pages now, which is odd because it used to work on any page. Several RfCs are in the project namespace, instead of the project talk namespace. -- Ned Scott 04:27, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't remember such a feature being added. --harej 19:27, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Date bug
It semms that on the topical subpages (arts, politics, bios, etc), the dates are a month in the future. This is a bug somehere, I would think. What's up? Baccyak4H (Yak!) 16:35, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * It's not a bug. It's the date that the RFC will be closed by the bot.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:37, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources (medicine-related articles)
An editor tried to add an RFC template to Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources (medicine-related articles) but it errors. I tried to fix it, twice and still can't figure out what is wrong. Could someone please help. Thanks Colin°Talk 14:11, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I twiddled with it a bit - let's see if that fixes it. really, I didn't see anything off except (maybe) some spacing issues.  -- Ludwigs 2  22:25, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

RfCTemplate error
Add me to the list of those who got an error for no apparent reason on the template, as used on Talk:Unfinished Music No.1: Two Virgins. An error message with no explanation is not good (or I could have said, very Microsoft-ish of you). :) Unless the person running the bot can fix it, I give up. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 13:26, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Well I don't run the bot, but I'll try give it a shot - it might also be where you placed the tag. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:42, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, it appeared to work when you moved it to the section. I had put it at the top of the page.  Since part of the tag points to the section, it seemed redundant to put it in the section itself.  The instructions just say to put the tag on the page; it doesn't say where.  I'm going to let the bot know about this. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 16:00, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, it's an artifact of Centrx's attempt to delete the bot recently. I've restored the correct instructions.  Please let me know if the instructions about the template could be improved.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:47, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It would help if you would show a better example so we'd know what to put inside section - ie I put in Talk:Christina_Hoff_Sommers#Criticism_of_Hoff_Sommers_Ok.2C_Just_needs_to_be_WP:NOR_and_WP:RS but just got an error message. (It seems to me i used another page as an example but can only find this one now.) Carol Moore 12:40, 18 September 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}
 * I think you might have been better off reading the #Instructions instead of the example. I think I've fixed the problem at your page (if not, you might try removing the underscores (_) from between the words in the section name.  I've added some tips to the example; you're not the first person to have this problem.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:12, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Some feedback, in case it's helpful: At Talk:Clarence Thomas it took the editors there 3 tries to get the bot to work.  The syntax was almost right, but they just kept getting "error" back: The problem seemed to be with getting the "time" field properly formatted.  Do we really need that?  Seems to me that the bot could probably fill it in automatically. Or perhaps, give immediate feedback when the template is used?  For example, if I try to prod an article and I forget the subst, I get a big red message right in the preview screen.  Maybe the RfC templates could be tweaked accordingly, that they'd give immediate feedback as to whether they were right or not when someone hits "preview", rather than them having to wait an hour for the next bot pulse? --Elonka 17:48, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think the bot is smart enough to provide useful feedback. In the named case, it was a failure to follow instructions:  "Sign with five tildes, to present a timestamp but no signature."  WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:29, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

RFC Policy
I'm trying to find, and have been unable to, the policy on changing an RFC once discussion about it has begun. In particular, see WP:RFC/Kainaw. If you look at the first version, you will see what the complaint and desired resolution were. Discussion about those continued on the page. Then, when it appeared that the RFC wasn't going the way some users liked, the complaint and desired resolution were changed to make the discussion appear to have a different meaning. It is, to me, the equivalent of having a survey which asks "Do you like oysters?" Then, if someone answers "No. I hate them," I change the question to "Do you like minority people?" It gives the discussion of the question a completely different meaning. So, I think there must be some policy. I just can't find it. -- k a i n a w &trade; 00:12, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The link is here. User RfCs, as it states plainly on this page, are unpredictable beasts:  "An RfC may bring close scrutiny on all involved editors."  There is no requirement that the "close scrutiny" be limited to the original dispute, the original article, the original editor, or anything else.
 * Your task is to write a thoughtful and carefully reasoned response; it belongs in the "response" section. Note that -- according to the directions on the page -- you should not be editing any other section or arguing with people about their views.  If you have comments or questions about something that someone else has written, then you should take it up on the talk page, instead of under "Users certifying the basis for this dispute."  WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:44, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The discussion section states "Do not post anything here". It appears to me that the RFC is specifically designed to ensure that the user in question is not allowed to participate.  Honestly, who is going to take the time to go to the talk page?  It appears that the RFC process is a bigger joke than the Philcha's complaint. --  k a i n a w &trade; 12:10, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I've spent a lot of time on RFC talk pages; in many instances, I spend more time on the talk pages than on the main page.
 * You are not required to respect the RFC process. No RFC/U can impose any form of sanctions on any unwilling editor.  (It might happen to get the attention of an independent admin that finds a user's behavior blockable, but that's technically a different process.)
 * Failure to participate constructively may result in editors getting disgusted with you, or bored with the process and leaving you alone. On the other hand, it may also result in further escalation through the WP:Dispute resolution process.  The only thing I think we can guarantee is this:  If you end up at ArbCom, and you have not demonstrated a good faith effort to find a workable compromise, then your attitude will be counted against you -- even if the complaints against you are ultimately dismissed.
 * In the end, how you respond is entirely up to you: you're the one that will have to live with the consequences of your choices.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:50, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I read through the RFC page repeatedly and did not find anywhere where it said "This is where you respond if the RFC is about you". I was left with the impression that I was not supposed to respond in any way on the RFC.  Imagine a process in which a person is accused, but not allowed to respond or defend himself.  That was my impression of the RFC.  I have finally seen that I was supposed to respond in the Response section - which I have done.  It is actually good that I took so long to respond as I was able to explain in the response that the discussion on the RFC is about the original statement, not about the amended one designed to make the responses appear to have a completely different meaning. --  k a i n a w &trade; 01:45, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * As you seem to have discovered, your response belongs in the section that starts "This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed". Perhaps we should update Template:ConductDiscussion to include that instruction as well.
 * Are there any outside views on adding a sentence like "Your comments are welcome on the RFC page in the section labeled Response."? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:15, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

error in instructions
i asked at the Help Desk but they've directed me here with my anxiety: i'm trying to post an RfC on Talk:Pop music: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pop_music#RfC:_What_is_the_intended_subject_of_this_article.3F but it looks too weird to be right! i've read the instructions six times and can't see where i went wrong, so if someone can help with it i'd be very grateful, thanks Sssoul (talk) 21:06, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

update: okay, i figured it out: the instructions on the RfC page say the "codename" to use in the template for art/music/etc-related articles is "RFCart", but that leads to some very bizarre and confusing results. the "codename" to use is "RFCmedia". i've fixed my own RfC post on the pop-music talk page, but i hope someone can correct the instructions - thanks Sssoul (talk) 21:26, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

it's been fixed now - thanks Sssoul (talk) 23:19, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

should "no original research" preclude ab directo prima facie observation?
Ok, so I'm listening to this guy complimenting me and I think "I don't want this guy to think I want compliments but I don't want to be rude" so I say something that suddenly people the world over say - circa 2003 - and I think to myself "Why the heck does everyone want to say _that_?" so I observe for myself the structure of what I said. I observe and I come to the conclusion that all idioms are structured in the same way. I think of examples. Sure enough, the explanation is the same... always the same.

Only I'm not at university. I don't want to go back. I don't have time for this trivial piece of information... except, there's this database on the internet that everyone refers to that has a whole entire page of examination of exactly this subject and NONE of it is right, because if you test for yourself, like any scientist, sceptic or truth-seeker should, what the explanation is WITH WHAT IS RIGHT IN FRONT OF YOU, you will find that the explanation I have is correct. So I enter the explanation.

Then someone deletes it... after admitting that it is an amusing observation (naturally cited with immediately observable proofs).

Now, I know what you're thinking "Is this guy who thinks he knows something crackpot or is he telling the truth and just laughing at Wikipedia now?" Well actually, I'm only laughing a little bit. That's because I'm giving you a chance: there is such a thing that does not need government funded research to be true and yes, some people call it interesting knowledge. In fact, there is truth, the knowledge of which can be built upon! But will wikipedia recognize it, even as it puts up pages on pop-culture trivia that has nothing to do with intellectual pursuit whatsoever?

Have you forgotten that it is intellectual pursuit that was the basis of universities around the world, not government funded research programs? Or did you suppose that now that your mind is hidden in your skull, you can go about research a hero because you have not actually used it and still done something that passes for intelligence? I do not mean to insult you, but merely challenge you.

What I "discovered", if you can call something so "banal" a discovery, is something I could explain to a five year old and you will remember that that was Einstein's test of real knowledge!

The way I see it, there are two ways you can cope. Both are equally good. One, you can overturn this "must be paid for observation" rule - I will pay to put this on wikipedia for crying out loud (don't question my motives) - two, you can develop a system whereby knowledge is verified (the latter is the more complex of the two options).

All it takes to verify what I have observed is the following, ask yourself this: does "you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink?" sound at all like you can make it drink? The honest answer is "yes, it sounds like you are saying it can be made to drink because 'o' in "horse" becomes 'o' in "to" like a horse being led to drink, 'a' 'e' in water making a "satisfied" sound (a painful vowel followed by pleasurable one)". All idioms in english follow the same statement vs intonation contradiction (I believe Chinese idioms may be similar: intonation vs reference contradictions).

Do you think you need to go to University to know that?


 * Wikipedia attempts to collect information that is verifiable, not true. This page isn't the correct place to contest these rules anyway.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:43, 28 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Ingenius as your reply appears to be, there are things that are verifiably true. One does not need a logarithm to verify that 1 + 1 = 2. If I discovered 1 + 1 = 2 and believed it to be noteworthy for colleagues who would observe it the same, would I not contribute it? But as with all things, there is a time and a place, as the next poster so helpfully points out.


 * You can post original research at Wikinfo. Peter jackson (talk) 10:39, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Thankyou so much for your contribution. I have made a brief entry at Wikinfo. Hopefully, that will be the seed enough for future thought on the subject.

Kabbalah article RfC
User Bob (QaBob) (QaBob) has requested an RfC without going through any normal process of discussion, which would normally require giving interested editors time to discuss his suggestion to move the article. In fact, after his initial suggestion yesterday, and request then for comment, he actually moved the article, and changed the links in about 100 articles other article to the new name he created. I really do not consider any of this acceptable. In any case, I do not think discussion has reached the point that justifies an RfC. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:33, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The point of an RfC is to gather a broader consensus of editors. Reading though Talk:Kabbalah, it was clear that the article had been dominated for some time by those with a more or less limited view of the subject. Thus I felt the need for more eyes on the issue. Bob (QaBob) 14:37, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The simple fact is that you suggested the move yesterday, and requested the RfC the same day. How do you know that discussion with interested editors would not resolve the issue? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:44, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Because of your repeated removal of the tag. You seem to have a vested interest in not attracting more eyes. If you had not repeatedly removed it, I would have been happy to wait for the responses of other editors. You shot yourself in your own foot by edit warring over the tag. Bob (QaBob) 14:50, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


 * You had placed no explanation, on the article talk page, to justify the reason for the tag. When you explained, I stopped removing the tag. I do not think asking for an explanation is an excessive demand. An explanation is considered normal. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:04, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, I had. Twice. One section entitled "Proposed move" and a subsection entitled "Unbalanced". However I will assume good faith and assume that there was a datebase lag so that you somehow did not see updates to the Talk page on your watchlist even though you clearly saw the updates to the article itself. Why don't you do the same, stop forum shopping,  and we can just go forward with the formal move process? Okay? Bob (QaBob) 15:08, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

There is no justification for the RfC without first taking the time to discuss the issues with interested editors. Just what is the big rush? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:17, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I am not asking your permission for anything, Malcolm. I have offered my explanation because your understanding is (in my view) incorrect, but if you get it, or not, is just not my concern. In any case, now that the process is started, I don't feel there is any rush. Do you? Bob (QaBob) 15:21, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


 * What reason is there for not removing the RfC tag?Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:27, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The reason is that the RfC is still ongoing. What reason is there for removing it? It's certainly not hurting anything. Bob (QaBob) 17:29, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Bob, this RFC sounds premature. Vexatious use of the dispute resolution process wastes Wikipedia's resources and irritates people.  You have the right to start an RFC at any point, but standing on your rights is not always the wisest course of action.  It's generally best to follow the advice about RFCs:  "Before asking outside opinion here, it generally helps to simply discuss the matter on the article talk page first. Whatever the disagreement, the first step in resolving a dispute is to talk to the other parties involved."  Starting an RFC with no discussion is an indication that you are not only failing to assume good faith, but probably also pushing your POV.
 * At any rate, this 'tis/'tisn't sort of conversation doesn't belong here and doesn't serve the encyclopedia. Malcolm, I suggest that you invest your energy in locating the best possible reliable sources to argue against Bob (assuming that you disagree with his suggestion).  RFCs of this sort very frequently backfire.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


 * In point of fact, I started a discussion. At the time, Malcolm declined to respond on the talk page, instead repeatedly removing a template from the article. Then I started the RfC. I may very well be in the wrong, but I think the discussion deserves input from generalist in the area of religion as well as specialist in the topic of Kabbalah. Bob (QaBob) 19:16, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Bob's account of the placing of this RfC seems to be correct. He restored the unbalanced tag @ 1256 & the RfC @ 1257. His placing of the RfC can reasonably be regarded as a response to the deletion of the tag. I'd be inclined to react similarly, tho' I'm not an expert on WP procedure. It seems to me he's doing what he should have done before, instead of moving the article unilaterally. Peter jackson (talk) 11:08, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Paladin
I tried to start an RfC at Paladin, but something's not working and I can't tell what. It may just be beyond my limited capabilities. Help?--Cúchullain t/ c 22:11, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Cuchullain, if you have a look at this it might help:
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment&curid=449893&diff=242842550&oldid=242561957#error_in_instructions
 * it looks to me like you used "RFCart" in your template just like i did in mine before discovering that it should be "RFCmedia".
 * in your case, though, isn't the history section more appropriate than the media/art/etc section? for history-related topics the code to use in the template is "RFChist" - if the instructions are correct, that is! Sssoul (talk) 22:22, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks a lot, I'll have a go with that.--Cúchullain t/ c 22:45, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Adding an RfC manually
Is this still allowed, and if it is, can anyone advise how to do it? SlimVirgin talk| edits 16:32, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * What sort of RFC? User conduct RFCs are 100% manual; process and article RFC work in conjunction with a bot and are not listed manually.  MBisanz  talk 16:47, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * An article RfC. I've used the template this time, but I'd like to do it manually in future. There's a sentence where the template method is described that to do it manually you click on a link that says "add discussion" (writing from memory), but then when you look, there is no such link, or if there is, it's not clear where it is. SlimVirgin  talk| edits 16:59, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that was phased out in favor of having a bot do all the listings for article RFC, basically its now "fill out a template on the article talk page and a bot will list/categorize it"  MBisanz  talk 17:01, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * That's right. I'm not sure why there'd be a want to do it manually, but apparently if you try to do it manually, you'll be reverted by the bot. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:16, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It can be done; there's one at Requests for comment/Maths, science, and technology right now. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:15, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks for the replies, everyone. NCMV, I just prefer to do these things manually, because working out how to use the templates always seems to take longer, for me anyway. :-) SlimVirgin  talk| edits 19:41, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, that's okay. :) A lot of people were having trouble with the templates in the past few months too. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:25, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Fireproof (film)
May I please get some comment on this discussion for Fireproof (film)? I did what it says, and no one was paid any attention. These people keep added the content back, and I don't want to get into a 3RR over this. Please help me. God bless,  American Eagle ( talk ) 04:53, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

sorry
i am sorry for editing on those pages i didnt mean anythhing out of it i didnt know it was bad.im sorry it will not happen again.thankyou

circular RfC entry
could someone please have a look at Requests_for_comment/All? someone appears to have listed the RfC list itself as a subject of an RfC, which is weird enough as it is; to make it weirder, if you click the "add a discussion" thing, the text you see in "edit" mode has no apparent relation to what you see in "read" mode. it seems appropriate to notify whoever was trying to list those RfCs that they need to try again, but i can't figure out who the editors were. Sssoul (talk) 17:41, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I guess the root of the problem is the template
 * placed in the page Requests_for_comment/Economy,_trade,_and_companies/manual by user User:Centrepull. I have no clue how to fix it though. [[Image:Smiley.svg|17px]] MaNiAδIs - τάλκ - GuεστBooκ 22:16, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * thanks for taking an interest - it's getting curiouser and curiouser, though! where did the "candidate for speedy deletion" tag come from?! that wasn't there before! and why isn't the tag visible in "edit mode"??
 * thanks for verifying that Centrepull posted the RfC - i did leave a message about it for him/her a few days ago, but never heard back from him/her, and today i couldn't figure out how i'd worked out that he/she was the probable poster of it. i was going to remove the RfC template myself, but i can't see it in "edit mode" - can you?? in "edit mode" (clicking the "add a discussion" thing) all i see is a totally different RfC-type text ... it's like The Twilight Zone! 8) Sssoul (talk) 22:38, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * edit: okay, the speedy deletion tag has vanished now ... but it really was there a few minutes ago! Sssoul (talk) 22:42, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * edit: okay, the speedy deletion tag has vanished now ... but it really was there a few minutes ago! Sssoul (talk) 22:42, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, the speedy tag was from me, but I decided to remove it, until the request for comment is moved to the proper page...[[Image:Smiley.svg|17px]] MaNiAδIs - τάλκ - GuεστBooκ 22:43, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


 * It is a subpage named manual inside the main page, this is why I put the speedy, but then I removed it until the comment is moved to wherever it should be, this is what I do not know, is it the talk page for Vistaprint?
 * ah so ... thank you for clarifying. meanwhile, i located that subpage and removed the misplaced RfC template from there - on the "be bold" principle, and since i've already notified Centrepull about the error - but it doesn't seem to have affected the listing on the RFC/A page.  maybe it takes a bit of time to process? anyway, i'll leave another note for Centrepull about it ... thanks for your help and for taking an interest.  Sssoul (talk) 22:52, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


 * This last part was work of the RFCbot, which automatically includes pages with the rfc template in the page Requests_for_comment/Economy,_trade,_and_companies, I removed it now...[[Image:Smiley.svg|17px]] MaNiAδIs - τάλκ - GuεστBooκ 22:57, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

(undent) yeah, i understand that the bot puts pages on the list, but it's also supposed to take them off the list when the template's removed - oh well, maybe it was just a bit slow this time. meanwhile ... clicking on the "add a discussion" thing in each section on the RFC/A page, it turns out they all have the same text in them, which is different from what you see in "read" mode - that doesn't seem right! especially since the text is a bit weird: it starts off about a bio but ends up being about some linguistic issue. the subpage it's on seems to be WP:Requests for comment/All/manual - is that the way it's supposed to be?? Sssoul (talk) 00:01, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * No this is a misuse of the template, this is why I already started another section below, for somebody to fix it. [[Image:Smiley.svg|17px]] MaNiAδIs - τάλκ - GuεστBooκ 00:17, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Bug in the Template:RFC list footer template
When the template is transcluded in any of the Wikipedia:Requests for comment/  pages it creates a link Manually-added entries:      [add a discussion] which opens an edit in the Wikipedia:Requests for comment/ /manual page. But when this pages are transcluded in the Requests for comment/All page, this link redirects to the Requests for comment/All/manual page instead of the  Wikipedia:Requests for comment/watever/manual as it should. I think somebody who knows about how templates work, should fix this. MaNiAδIs - τάλκ - GuεστBooκ 00:07, 2 November 2008 (UTC)


 * As a temporary solution I try to substitute the template and the page name and it worked for a while, until the RFCbot revert my changes and replaced the original template. Out of ideas... [[Image:Smiley.svg|17px]] MaNiAδIs - τάλκ - GuεστBooκ 00:20, 2 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Fixed, I add in the template, but I had to revert all the redirections to make it work without touching the code of the RCFbot. [[Image:Smiley.svg|17px]] MaNiAδIs - τάλκ - GuεστBooκ  03:04, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

A Muppalla
MUPPALLA is a reputed village in Ipur mandal,Guntur District,Andhra Pradesh.And also called as Arepalli Muppalla, since there are some other places with the same name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Veeravs (talk • contribs) 21:08, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

How do I close an RFC/u?
I assume its some sort of template? Garycompugeek (talk) 23:11, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * An RFC/U will be delisted after about 30 days of inactivity, or when a request for arbitration on the matter is accepted - alternatively, it may be closed upon the dispute being resolved amongst the parties (whether this is by explicit agreement in the RFC/U, or if a party is sanctioned). Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:04, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * RFC's on user are not closed by bots but by inivolved third parties (in this case me). How is this done? Garycompugeek (talk) 13:41, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Um, this may just be a typo, but RfC/U's are closed by UNinvolved people.
 * As for what to do, the most important thing to remember is that an RfC/U cannot, under any circumstance, actually impose a solution on unwilling partners. So the closer actually has very little power beyond the bully pulpit.  This is part of WP:Dispute resolution, not "crime and punishment".
 * As for how to do it, User:Wizardman closes a lot of them; I'd look at one or two of the recently closed ones, and perhaps his contributions log, and use those as patterns. (Actually, I would probably just ask him to do it when he had a few minutes free... but if I were trying to reduce his workload, then I'd copy his pattern.)  WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:49, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Uninvolved of course.  Was going to close one I read on RFC/a that seems to need closing. Garycompugeek (talk) 05:41, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Closures by Wizardman
On the occasion of a recent closure by Wizardman, I'll put on record that I strongly object to that new-fangled practice, apparently invented by him recently, that a self-appointed "closer" finishes the RFC with a "concluding statement", which purports to be an authoritative summary of its results, like a final judgment. There is no need for any such, and nothing that would authorise an editor to provide one.

Closing an RfC means simply archiving it, and, at most, adding a factual notice about concrete outcomes such as bans or referrals to Arbcom that have actually resulted. But a final assessment of the weight or merit of opinions expressed in it is not something any individual is entitled to have a final say about. If anybody wants to provide such an assessment summary, as their personal opinion, they are welcome to do so, but in the form everybody else does it, as an "outside view". To add such a comment and then immediately close the process, making it by necessity the "final word", means assuming a position of self-appointed authority and giving your personal opinion an appearance of weight above that of others, in a way that is simply not legitimate. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:29, 10 November 2008 (UTC)


 * As I noted on your talk page, it was not appropriate for you to refactor another uninvolved editor's comment for an RFC you're the subject of (or clearly and unambiguously involved in). That said, your concern is noted.


 * Wizardman and myself have been closing RFCs regularly for sometime (Wizardman since July, and myself since somewhere in April), but our styles vary - basically, on the point you've raised. Generally, if I've added a summary, it is per our norms since 2006: for either concrete outcomes, if an editor has stopped editing Wikipedia, or on the rare occasion where only one outside view has been made and endorsed unambiguously. Otherwise, it's been a straight delist and archive, and I'm happy to have had no issues so far.


 * Wizardman has usually taken delisting/archiving one step further by attempting to summarise the outside views made and warn concerned users where it appears there is a conduct problem. On a couple of occasions, off memory, I've objected to some of the closes and made modifications (if I was made aware of this close earlier, this would've been another one). But I didn't think it was an issue, given that there was some support for his style by some of the community, and no vocal objections, particularly by ArbCom (given that they've done a case proceeding an RFC closed by Wizardman: Alastair Haines). I think more community input on this issue will be worthwhile. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:12, 10 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The RFC is about your user conduct, it is clearly improper for you to be editing the closing admin's comments, per the RFC instructions and the general arbcom admonition for uninvolved administrators to close discussions that have reached their natural end.  MBisanz  talk 13:12, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You are just as involed as I am, so why are you edit-warring over it? As for your argumentation, it is clearly invald: closing judgments are only appropriate in decision-making processes that end in concrete administrative action, such as a naming dispute ending in a page move, or an AfD ending in deletion. RfCs simply aren't decision-making processes in that sense. There is no factual need for a closing statement of any sort. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:14, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Wizardman simply determined what the consensus of the RfC was - he wasn't making judgement on anyone. In this case, I think he got it spot on. Of course, what he says isn't binding but it would be good to strongly consider the points he made or this could move onto greater levels of dispute resolution in the future. It's entirely up to you Fut. Now, I've just archived it now and left Wizardman's comment as an outside view simply to put it to bed.  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 13:15, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * This is not about what he said (in fact, I'm not in the least interested in what he said; I hardly read it except for a very superficial skimming); it's about how he said it. And yes, from the fragments I did read it looked like he was laying down the law and, on his own authority, "cautioning" this and that. If he wants do do so, privately, no problem, but from an assumed position of authority? No, just no. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:20, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, as I said, it's your choice entirely how you take his comment. I would personally be pleased that someone neutral came along to determine what the RfC is saying and try hard to follow their advice. It's non-binding, but arbcom wouldn't look favourable if problems persisted and the advice wasn't taken.  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 13:26, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not like he was saying anything new, was he? There was a short moment some time two months ago when there was some actual talk going on it that RfC, and everything that needed to be said was said back then. Since then it has merely lingered on as a playground of trolls and clowns (just look at some of the last few outside views); it's lost every last shred of legitimacy as far as I'm concerned. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:32, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I've been watching the "closure" of this RFC, it seems that there are four of you (all uninvolved in the RFC) who agree with the need for a concluding statement and that just FPAS (the subject of the RFC) disagrees against it's need. You shouldn't cave in on any issue in life just because 1 person opposes you, is there anyway you guys can hold an Arbcom (sorry for a faux pas I make, I am unfamiliar with the background workings of Wikipedia) and determine in black & white if there should be a concluding statement on RFCs Ryan 4314   (talk) 19:27, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I generally support and appreciate Wizardman's summaries. I do see them as summaries of what was said before, and I believe that they serve a useful neutral voice.  RfC/U's do see a lot of people that refuse to listen to good advice because it's delivered by the same two (or four, or six, or twelve) people that are "always against me".  I think that having an experienced person add, "These other editors really are right when they say you're violating [fill in the relevant policy], and you really will get blocked if you don't improve" helps them see that it's not just the people that are "always" complaining, but the entire community.  Also, I think it reduces the number of "But nobody (except the ones that are "always against me") ever told me that I couldn't..." complaints at ArbComm.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:32, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * But that kind of outside neutral feedback is exactly what an "outside view" is for. That's why the whole thing is called "request for comment", remember? If he wants to give such feedback, why can't he do it in that form like everybody else? If his summary is going to have some special amount of authority, because of his general cluefulness or the thoughtful way he refers to what others have said before him or whatever, so much the better for him, but that authority should come simply from what he's saying, not from a self-assigned special procedural role, which is unwiki-ish. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:52, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, but no. RfC/U sees a lot of people that have trouble figuring out that all of these outside views actually add up to a community consensus.      In many cases (i.e., yours), your preferred approach is perfectly adequate.  In others, I think the "summary" style (as opposed to the "single independent opinion" style of another ===Outside view===) is actually helpful to the involved editors.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:09, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * If that is true and there are editors who really give more weight to an outside feedback just because it comes with the fake formal authority of a self-appointed procedural role (whose existence hasn't even got any basis in policy), then those editors are evidently not even worth the trouble, so why bother about them? Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:13, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Because those editors are disproportionately likely to end up in RfC, and disproportionately likely to cause more disruption if they feel like the "anonymous anarchy" of Wikipedia means that no one notices or cares if they violate all of our core principles. And since we can't very well run personality tests the first time any person clicks "edit this page" to see whether they'll be a good contributor, we're stuck with this after-the-fact process of educating and cleaning up after immature people.  If it takes a pronouncement handed down by some "fake formal authority" to get them to pay attention, then I'm all in favor of it.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:50, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * This is all still completely speculative. So there might be a hypothetical disruptive user who might respond well to such a summary, but might not get it unless someone used this specific format? Well, here's another thing that I find much less speculative, indeed rather approaching probabilistic certainty: if we institute this as a formal part of the process, one day it will be done by a person who is significantly less cluefull than Wizardman. What is the victim of an unfair or clueless summary to do in such a case? Are they supposed to just swallow it up as a final word? Will such a "judgment" stick to their name forever? The whole thing just opens up cans of worms that are totally unnecessary. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:04, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh and, in fact, speaking of cluefulness of summaries. I just went to look at a few of the other ones Wizardman wrote, among them those that were quoted as positive examples here. So, what do I see: I hereby warn User:X to be civil in content disputes, not to make false threats and accusations, and urge him to take this criticism constructively into making himself a better Wikipedia user. Well, thank you, Captain Obvious. Is this sugar-sweet slimy pontificating Newspeak really the type of style we are going to use in communicating with each other here? This just creeps me out. It is dumb, it is trivial, and it is above all unbearably patronising. – Honestly, I don't know, and don't want to know, if Wizardman said anything in that style to me too (as I said, I barely skimmed over it) – but if he did, he should be aware that no sane, adult person, after having gone through the experience of the RfC process, will ever react to being spoken to in this tone with anything but a big raised middle finger. --Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:52, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I will note the instructions clearly say the closing admin should notify the party of the outcome using outcome of RfC, meaning the closing admin needs to fill in the "outcome of the RfC". That means there is someone who "closes" the RfC as an uninvolved party and formulates its outcome.  MBisanz  talk 09:43, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Which is of course only possible if there is a concrete outcome, such as a binding agreement between parties, a community sanction, or referral to Arbcom. And the closing editor should not "determine" such an outcome, he should merely record it. It's not for the closer to decide what the outcome is. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:58, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * No, those same instructions say "An RfC cannot impose involuntary sanctions on a user, such as blocking or a topic ban; it is a tool for developing voluntary agreements and collecting information.", an RFC can never impose a concrete outcome like a community sanction.  MBisanz  talk 10:01, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * But outcomes emerge in the context of RfCs, even if the RfC is not formally the decision-making venue for them. Concrete outcomes are the kinds of things noted in the last column of the archive page: things get referred to Arbcom, admins resign their bit, editors get blocked or community-sanctioned or cease editing; editors agree to self-imposed restrictions; sometimes(!) disputes get marked as resolved. Those kinds of things should be recorded in a closing statement, yes. That's how it was always handled before Wizardman invented his new style this July. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:17, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I also disagree with the idea that one admin can provide a summary of the "outcome." RfCs are often highly ambiguous, and any such summary would have to be supplied by an admin with no dog in the fight whatsoever, which is very hard to judge much of the time. I think this practice should not continue. SlimVirgin  talk| edits 23:09, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Confused
My understanding of RfC is that it is a "request for comment".

Now when it involves content, a closer closes the RfC discussion at some talk page, making a determination of consensus.

Why should this be any different when it's user conduct?

It's still a consensual discussion.

Why a difference? - jc37 12:28, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I would agree, people have been closing user conduct RFCs for some time, Fut Perf is the only one at this point disagreeing with this traditional practice.  MBisanz  talk 12:35, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * It's not a traditional practice, it's a recent unilateral invention practiced by one single person since a few weeks ago. And, to Jc37, again: the difference is that at content discussions (or XfD's, or whatever), the discussion leads to a factual decision, a concrete action that has to be taken, and so the person who steps in to carry out that action needs to give a rationale for why he's made the call. A closing statement in a user RfC only makes sense where something analogous is the case, which it usually isn't. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:12, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Not exactly. Making a determination of consensus is long-standing practice.  The only 'innovation' is posting the closer's understanding of the consensus at the end of the RFC/U page.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:10, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * There was no such "long-standing practice" at all. The only thing that always got recorded was a very brief note on the archive page, which at most described the state of discussion (like "issues resolved", "discussion gone inactive", "subject has apologized", et cetera. Closers never assumed the authority to judge which side in a debate they felt was prevailing. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:18, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * If the closer didn't actually determine that there was a consensus, or that the process had been abandoned, then the closer had no business closing the RFC in the first place. This is dispute resolution:  you don't randomly close active processes just because you can, or just because the magic 30-day timer was up.  I'd be hard pressed to explain how a person could determine the state of the consensus without also determining what the consensus was.  The only difference here is that Wizardman actually writes down what he thinks the consensus agreement is, instead of keeping the closer's determination of "2. The parties to the dispute agree" a secret.
 * You don't have to like Wizardman's transparent approach, but let's please quit pretending that a determination of consensus hasn't been done silently for years. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:34, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * There's only one person disputing this so far, and it's fut perf. I'm happy for conclusions to be made as I think everyone except fut perf is. Fut per - can you just stop editing closed RfC's? I tried to make a compromise with you on your own, but I'm not prepared to when you're going around editing other RfC's that don't involve you. The consensus here is that what Wizardman is doing is ok - please respect that.  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 22:21, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * No. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:25, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * In Elonka's case, Wizardman notified her of his intent to close and did notify her of the close without any objections by anyone. What is the issue?  MBisanz  talk 22:27, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * A matter of principle. I think a heading of "Summary statement by ..." instead of "Conclusion" is a fair compromise, which actually allows him to continue doing what he does (and, quite possibly, in many cases does well), without establishing a dangerous precedent of assuming fake authority. What's wrong with "Summary statement"? Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:31, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It is Wizardman's comment and Elonka did not object to it at the time, it is improper to edit other people's comments, especially so long after they are made.  MBisanz  talk 22:32, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Normal constructive refactoring to get the format in line with policy. Legitimate. We correct people's entries on RfC pages all the time, when they don't stick to the prescribed format. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:33, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Addressing the comments of an in-progress RFC with the person who made them is fine, please refer to TALK: Never edit someone's words to change their meaning, even on your own talk page., further, I may be missing something, but there is no policy page defining what an RFC is, or even a guideline.  MBisanz  talk 22:47, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, if there's no guideline, how strange then that you still find so much to argue here, because all you seem to have to say is formalist quoting of policies and templates. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:50, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Well if nothing documents the rules of the page, except that you shouldn't edit other people's comments, then whatever Wizardman says on an RFC is fine.  MBisanz  talk 23:01, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * He should add his comments as his personal opinion, in my view, but not as any kind of official decision as to the outcome. SlimVirgin  talk| edits 23:11, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * (reply to FP)On the case of the Elonka RFC, both Elonka and ChrisO agreed to me drawing up a conclusion for it, and were actually appriciative of it. Wizardman  05:27, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Really? I can see no reaction from either of them. Only a mildly surprised reaction at the prior notification, surprised at the very idea RfCs should have formal closure, and no reaction to the conclusion all by either Elonka or ChrisO. Where was that "appreciation" expressed? Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:58, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Elonka's was off-wiki, ChrisO's was beforehand here. Wizardman  18:09, 12 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't have a any problem with Wizardman or anyone else summarising the points raised in an RFC but I must say that I really strongly object with the formality of his closures, especially the misleading use of terms such as "Formal Decision". I find this really objectionable and I would ask him and anyone else closing RFCs in this way to instead present their comments as their own personal opionion and interpretation of the discussion, which is all it really is. Sarah 01:16, 12 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I understand the concerns brought up, but what i find iffy is the request of it being an outside view, when in reality it's meant to be a summary. I could write a "summary" instead of a conclusion, but based on this discussion so far this likely wouldn't be met well. I admit that I'm taking liberties in the matter of making conclusions, but I do know I am no more privileged than anyone else in making these, and believe me I never throw my opinion into the cases (if i cared then i actually would write an outside view, which i've done in the past). I'm reluctant to give up doing this only because of one issue: if no one closes them, i.e. they just sit there and are archived after collecting dust, what become RFC's purpose? It feels like there needs to be a summary/conclusion one way or the other. That's basically the mentality of why I've been doing this. I guess I'm torn. I don't want to feel like I'm infringing on anyone by making arbitrary power moves, but i also don't want rfc/u to be useless. I can't say I have the answer for what needs to be done in the future, though I'll refrain from any rfc edits until this is settled. Wizardman  05:24, 12 November 2008 (UTC)


 * As I said, I'd find something in the format of "Summary statement by Wizardman" acceptable. Just make it clear it's you speaking, your personal opinion, and not a role of special authority conveyed on you by the process. Avoid expressions like "formal decision" or "this is the conclusion", and if you feel you have to warn somebody of sanctions, again make sure to express it in a way that describes it as you acting on your normal admin authority (e.g.: "On the basis of the consensus expressed here, I advise X that I will be prepared to block him if he does Y again"). Avoid referring to your summary as "the conclusions" in talkpage notifications. (And, as a recommendation, try to make it a little less patronising in tone.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:58, 12 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I would actually ask that nothing that sounds like a conclusion be posted &mdash; not even a "summary," because it's going to be very subjective, especially where there was ambiguity, as there often is. People can look at the RfC for themselves if they're interested. I would also say that no one should be blocked on the basis of any perceived consensus on the RfC, unless this happens much later in a way that's not connected to the RfC. Otherwise, we have a situation where a self-selected group ends up acting like a de facto ArbCom, with decisions and sanctions. An RfC can be closed without a summary or conclusion. SlimVirgin  talk| edits 07:06, 12 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I think I see what I was missing. The two above are debating about whether RfC should have "teeth" to determine an action based upon consensus of those commenting.
 * As that stands, no, as of several discussions, there is currently no consensus to add 'teeth" to RfC.


 * That said, there is nothing wrong with a closer posting a summary of the consensus of opinion in an RfC. The whole point of the RfC is to help the user understand how the community feels, and to hopefully take those concerns into consideration. Noting that if the concerns aren't resolved to the satisfaction of others, further WP:DR, and possibly other sanctions may result.


 * All that aside, editing others' closures is a very bad idea. Resolve the issues, and find consensus. But simply editing others' comments, especially long-standing ones, and especially while this discussion is going on, seems rather disruptive, and sounds like it may be worth blocking for. - jc37 07:17, 12 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I would have to agree. Without a conclusion being reached, a RfC becomes meaningless and we run the risk of becoming stuck with uncooperative users who willfully violate policy but not to the level of arbcom or with mitigating factors that make arbcom restrictions unnecessary, rather than reforming the defective parts of that editor so the good elements can be used to further the project. I acctually found Wizardman's summing up in this particular case to be succint (Though maybe I am biased, as his summary agreed with my view point). If FutPer doesn't like it, he doesn't have to pay any attention and can take his chances with civility blocks. I must admit, I am suprised that he even cares what is written there as he constantly denegrates the process and has stated several times he was no longer paying attention to the RfC. RfC/U either needs to draw a conclusion, or it needs to be tossed away, as it provides only a source of friction and polarisation without one. -- Narson ~  Talk  • 08:57, 12 November 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, let's get a few things straight - it's worthwhile skimming through this whole response because it contains relevant points for both 'sides'.
 * One purpose of RFC/Us (the ones with merit, anyway) is to provide users with a chance to reform their conduct if it is found that it was inappropriate. In the past, RFCs would stay open for quite some time. I've held the view that users can be given up to a few weeks grace time to understand their issues and improve their conduct. However, there are some users who don't understand, are incapable of understanding, or simply refuse to (conclusion, or no conclusion). They can end up sanctioned/blocked/banned, or they can lose their privilleges as a(n) mediator, bot-owner, admin, bureaucrat, checkuser, arbitrator, etc. [Yes, such is the power of the community if it stands up to any user or group of users, though it hasn't yet been (urgently) necessary for some of those categories mentioned.] When it happens, it's usually necessary, and comes as an indirect result of the RFC - not direct, but not utterly disconnected either. Additionally, when it happens, an entire dispute may end up resolved, so the outcome is recorded.
 * Other circumstances where an outcome is always recorded (or should be) is if the user has stopped editing, or if both parties have agreed to it being closed because it's resolved amongst themselves. And believe it or not, the latter has happened since I've been active in this area. :) In any case, these are our norms since 2006, and continued since my activity here in April (where RFCs from 2007 were still listed!).
 * In July, particularly when I was busy (as I am now), Wizardman pitched in to help delisting old RFCs. He did appoint himself 'RFC coordinator' or 'RFC clerk' at the time, and there was vocal disapproval by several users. I also added my view and clarified why it was inappropriate and he understood, and quite quickly got rid of the title. Despite this, I appreciate his activeness, and hope that he will continue helping regularly, under the condition that the following is clear.
 * RFCs have been functioning normally and appropriately since their creation without "conclusions" (excepting those in the two sub-points below), and usually, it hasn't become any less effective with conclusions. I'm well-aware of what James.F in particular has said some time ago on what he thinks of RFC/U as it goes currently, and there are some users who keep brandishing that statement on and off wiki. However, both the community and the Committee have, and still find value in the RFC and RFC/U process. The mere fact that a small handful of RFCs are converted into attack zones does not equate to all becoming worthless/useless.
 * RFC/U has never required a conclusion (other than in the circumstances I specified above) as a matter of necessity, and it probably never will. No strong objection (or alternatively, support) for some conclusions does not mean that it is a necessity in the same way other RFC guidelines should be enforced. Also, the absence of a conclusion does not equate to a RFC becoming useless, catching dust or becoming full of friction. That said, I don't mind conclusions being written, particularly if it helps parties in a dispute. But as I told you closer to the time when you pitched in, I will modify/replace any conclusions that I don't think are suitable or appropriate. Similarly, other uninvolved users might do so - but it doesn't mean you need to (or should stop) doing the other important RFC/U stuff. ;)
 * If anyone needs further clarification, please let me know. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:08, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I see your points, though I'm unfamiliar with James's opinions on that. All I can say is that my conclusions have been done as unbiased as I can and in good faith. Nautrally there are cases that don't need a conclusion, and i usually don't bother where the user has left or it is agreed upon (though ncm usually handles those quickly). But if my actions are not neededwanted at RfC then I won't worry about it, it clears time for other matters. Wizardman  18:14, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll give you the link to James opinion once I find it (probably will leave it on your talk page at some point). I don't think anyone disagrees with your second sentence either. Just as long as you understand: no problem with putting in your conclusions, but because it isn't a necessity in archiving (and a few people might object to those in a particular RFC), it may be modified/removed in some cases - even the one that sparked this discussion. I've bolded+modified something in my above cluster to clarify that you should stay involved (unless, of course, you're appointed elsewhere in the dispute resolution process). Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:43, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Please could someone comment on homosexual transsexual
The topic is provocative, the issue is simple. We need third comments on weather or not "homosexual transsexual" is just a term or a phenomena. Where the phenomena described is that of a transsexual having been an effeminate boy growing up to be a transwoman who is attracted to men. Or is "homosexual transsexual" just a particularly perjorative term for people with that kind of a bio?

For the record I have proposed a change of title to something else but that was also shot down. I promise no one will be offended by whatever you decide. --Hfarmer (talk) 21:51, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I know I'm not supposed to put something like the above here but it's been four days and not even one comment. --Hfarmer (talk) 21:52, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Being ignored is actually a pretty normal response to RFCs. You might post a note at WT:LGBT or WT:SEX to encourage responses from people that might actually know something about the subject.  It might also be helpful if you list a specific question under the RfC banner.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:57, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You can also try tying it into Eastern Europe, the Episodes and Characters ARBCOM, and/or pseudoscience. Badger Drink (talk) 04:45, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Requests for comment/MAL01159
Could a non-involved editor please formally close Requests for comment/MAL01159. Thank you, Kingturtle (talk) 15:37, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It was formally closed a couple months ago. I tweaked the page to reflect that. Wizardman  01:56, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Sarah Palin
Can a wiki lawyer :) help me out here. There is a discussion about including "material" about rape kite cost payments. Thanks! --Tom 20:17, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * i had a look at the RfC you're trying to post - i see two possible reasons why you're getting an "error" message instead of a proper posting. here's what you currently have:
 * "section=" should be followed the title of the section on the Palin talk page where you're having the RfC - the section's currently called "Request for Comment", not "Rape kit material", so perhaps you want to amend the section title; and "time=" should be followed by *five* tildes, not the usual four. if you fix those two things i hope the RfC bot will post your RfC properly on its next round.
 * i'd also consider changing the "reason=" section to a neutral form like "Should material about the cost of rape kits be included in this bio?" and a more informative summary would help as well - for example, where on the talk page is the discussion that the RfC is to be about?
 * hope that helps some. Sssoul (talk) 20:42, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * hope that helps some. Sssoul (talk) 20:42, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks! I have 10,000 edits here but can't do a simple RFC, go figure :) --Tom 20:51, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Can hard rights mess up the template to keep off list?
After a number of tries I did NOT get an error message, but it still doesn't show up on the list. I later noticed the link had been broken by a hard right, possibly since the editors I disagree with got in there right away opining away. Whether accidentally or not, can an inserted hard right make this happen? Here's my code in case you see anything wrong:   Tnanks! Carol Moore 21:36, 21 November 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc

Template
I just can't figure out how to make it work. I apologize in advance. 66.186.173.180 (talk) 05:48, 28 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I managed to make it work using this edit, which resulted in this listing.   — Jeff G. (talk&#124;contribs) 11:23, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Template, again
I'm having the same problem. No matter how accurately I follow the instructions, Bot says it's wrong. Please assist, thanks, EagleScout18 (talk) 04:10, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * maybe someone could help if you'd provide a link to the page where you're trying to launch an RfC. Sssoul (talk) 06:58, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Talk:Barack Obama, apparently. EagleScout did not list the correct section name.  Talk:Barack Obama does not exist.  It needed to point to Talk:Barack Obama (which means |section=Germany Protest Ban ).  (Actually, looking at the talk page, it really needed to just be a conversation on the talk page, without bothering to set up a formal RfC.)
 * I have added a footnote that I hope will attract some attention to this relatively common error. I'd be happy to see the parameter renamed to something less ambiguous:  perhaps something like |location-of-rfc-on-talk-page=.   WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:18, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * ... do you mean Talk:Public_image_of_Barack_Obama, maybe? actually in my experience misnaming the section doesn't lead to a bot error message; it just means the RfC listing links to the talk page instead of to the exact section of the talk page. i'll try to figure out what else is wrong with that attempted RfC on the "public image" talk page. Sssoul (talk) 08:03, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * update: this is the template that resulted in the error message:
 * i believe the errror message resulted from the use of four tildes in the "time=" section - you need to use five tildes in an RfC listing template, to produce a timestamp, not a signature.
 * at the same time, the "section=" bit is also incorrectly filled out. as i noted i don't think that mistake alone would result in an error message; it would just mean the listing doesn't point to the right place on the page.  to do it properly it should read:
 * on that talk page it looks like the RfC itself is a matter of dispute, and i'm not interested in participating in that, but i hope that helps if someone wants to go ahead and fix the listing. Sssoul (talk) 08:15, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for looking further than I did. It appears that EagleScout was trying to open several RfCs at once.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:30, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * on that talk page it looks like the RfC itself is a matter of dispute, and i'm not interested in participating in that, but i hope that helps if someone wants to go ahead and fix the listing. Sssoul (talk) 08:15, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for looking further than I did. It appears that EagleScout was trying to open several RfCs at once.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:30, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Should freedom of speech be supressed in a time of crisis?
I was just curious to see what most people's opinions were on the subject and why.
 * Try a forum, perhaps? Protonk (talk) 06:26, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

U.S. Congressional Districts
I've just "corrected" a number of names in the predecessor/successor box at the bottom of the bio pages for members of Congress. But there is a problem: Because that box contains a district number someone is going to change it back on me. Michigan (and surely other states) renumbers its districts so that, while the geography stays the same or similar, the number changes dramatically.

Example: ''Bart Stupak represents the UP and northern Lower Michigan. Currently that is the first district. Someone listed John Conyers (whose district used to be number one and is now 14) as his predecessor. John Conyers district is primarily in the city of Detroit. About as far as one can get from Stupak's district. How can John Conyers be Bart Stupak's predecessor when Conyers still serves much of the same district he has since 1964? William Davis is in fact Bart Stupak's predecessor (in the old district numbered 11, which contained the UP and northern lower Michigan)''.

Someone/people are strictly adhering to the numbers which makes it innaccurate. Any ideas on how to resolve this? Has there been another category/topic where a precedent has been established?

I would suggest mentioning all applicable numbers in the box. If the district is dramatically altered, mention all predecessor who'd represented a significant (20-25%) number of the current district's constituents.mp2dtw (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 04:15, 7 December 2008 (UTC).

Can someone look at this? It is posted under dermatologic surgeon
To me, it is an organization trying to attract new members by defining itself. It is not a board certifying agency, it is not a fellowship granting agency, it is simply a membership in an organization.

How can paying membership fee qualify one to be a SURGEON???

Gosh darn it, then the folks who don't pay up are, Dermatologic Non-Surgeons??

A little focused on a geographic area, and even worse, a self proclaimed organization at best.

Dermatologic surgeon From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search See also: Dermatology#Dermatologic_Surgery Dermatologic surgeons (sometimes referred to as "Dermasurgeons") are Board-certified dermatologists who are members of American Society for Dermatologic Surgery (ASDS), a professional medical organization founded in 1970.

After completing their residency education, candidates take an exam given by the American Board of Dermatology (ABD). Doctors who pass the Board-certification exam are then referred to as Diplomates of the ABD (i.e., Board-certified Dermatologists). Dermatologists with special interest in dermatologic surgery may apply to the ASDS for membership by submitting an application and three letters of endorsement from current members of the ASDS. To advance dermatologic surgery as a scientific discipline as well as the knowledge and skills of each practitioner, the ASDS supports clinical and basic research grants and provides continuing education opportunities for its members. The following is a summary of available membership categories with the ASDS:

Fellow: A U.S. or Canadian physician who is certified by the American Board of Dermatology or in dermatology by the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada. Fellows have the right to attend membership meetings, vote, be a candidate for elective office, and accept appointment to committees and councils. Corresponding Fellow: A physician in good standing as a teacher or in research or with three years of full-time experience in the practice of dermatology who resides in any country other than the U.S. or Canada. Educational and professional requirements shall be approximately equivalent to the requirements for certification by the American Board of Dermatology. Associate: Any physician in good standing who is a resident of the U.S. or Canada and who has had three years of full-time experience in the practice of, or is a teacher or graduate student of dermatology and who has had training which qualifies the person for the examination of the American Board of Dermatology or the examination in dermatology of the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada, or who is actively pursuing the educational requirements for certification by the American Board of Dermatology or for certification in dermatology by the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada. Affiliate: Any physician or scientist in good standing who has had specific experience or interest in dermatologic surgery or related scientific fields of endeavor. Affiliates shall have all of the rights of Fellows except that they shall not be eligible to serve in any elective office. Trainee: A U.S. or Canadian resident who is in an approved Fellowship Training Program. Thus, a dermatologic surgeon demonstrates competence in the diagnosis, medical care, and surgical management of the following:

Diseases and disorders of the skin, hair, nails, veins, and nearby tissues Benign and malignant growths and skin cancers Aging and sun-damaged skin Cosmetic improvement of the skin Techniques available to a dermatologic surgeon include lasers, traditional scalpel surgery, electrosurgery, cryosurgery, photodynamic therapy, liposuction, blepharoplasty (cosmetic eyelid surgery), minimally-invasive facelift surgery (e.g., the S-lift), and a variety of topical and injectable agents such as dermal fillers including fat transfer and hyaluronic acid.

Some specially trained dermasurgeons perform Mohs cancer surgery, which can be an effective method for the treatment of recurrent, indistinct, or difficult skin cancers.

[edit] External Links American Society for Dermatologic Surgery American Board of Dermatology, Inc. Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dermatologic_surgeon" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Northerncedar (talk • contribs) 23:36, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry that you find this confusing. Qualified physicians who do not choose to join this organization simply don't use this name.  They call themselves Dermatologists or Surgeons and leave it at that.  Wikipedia accurately reports the facts here.  Presumably the article exists so that an interested person can find out that there's no legal difference between a "dermatologic surgeon" and a "dermatologist who does surgery".  ::If you want to discuss the article's contents, please go to Talk:Dermatologic surgeon.  If you want to try to have it deleted, then please read the Articles for Deletion process.  This is not the right page for anything about this article.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:30, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Error with RFC on "Astrobiological Potential" title replacing "Planetary Habitability title."

 * This article's title should not hinging on one publication. it should be called what it is desribing and what scientists are refering to, which is "Astrobiological Potential."


 * You need to follow the directions. Don't put just "  on the page.  Put  on the page.  We have provided detailed directions on this page (be sure to read both sentences under #3, not just the first one).  Please attempt to follow them if you want an RFC to be automatically processed by the bot.
 * However: Have you tried just having a conversation on the article's talk page?  It's kind of silly to start a Wikipedia-wide request for comments without first attempting to resolve the question among the article's regular editors.  They might all agree with you, after all.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:32, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Another page not visited by bot
I thought I did everything right at Talk:Missing in action, but it's been almost a day and the bot hasn't visited it or listed the page at RFC/HIST. Can anyone tell what's going wrong? Apologies in advance if I messed something up and don't realize it. Thanks. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:44, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Patricia Pearson Biography and those of relatives
Although the Patricia Pearson entry correctly reports that she resigned a while ago from the as a columnist at the National Post, the entries for some of her relatives still refer to her as a National Post columnist.

Patricia Pearson in her non-fiction 2008 book Anxiety describes her personal struggles with mental illness and the related treatments. It describes her as being enrolled as a graduate student at the University of Chicago, but her description indicates not much education occurred and she terminated her relationship with the university because she could not skip a semester to deal with her difficulties. So it seems somewhat misleading to to say she was educated at the University of Chicago, it would seem more accurate to say she started to attend but then terminated without graduating due to medical issues. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.30.202.21 (talk) 01:24, 24 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure why you posted this comment here. Surely the talk page for the relevant article would be a better place?  WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:21, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

RfC slow to appear
About 24 hours ago, I placed an RfC here, but it hasn't been listed yet. As far as I can tell, I filled out the template correctly. Did I do something wrong, or is the bot just slow? Thanks for any help!. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:26, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Ditto this, regarding KKG and Bruce Ivins, which hasn't been picked up by the RFC main page yet. 207.237.33.133 (talk) 21:04, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

same here - is the bot simply running slower than usual, or have i mangled something in the template? Sssoul (talk) 12:58, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Mine has now appeared, and is all OK. I guess the bot is just slow. (Joke: Wikipedia, where you can edit right now, unless you have to wait for a bot!) Seriously, I'd like to suggest that the display wording in the template be changed from "within an hour" to something more realistic. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:41, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Still an issue; I added the template here, 5 hours ago and it's still not listed. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 18:12, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Mine took about 48 hours. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:41, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Anybody home ?
Is there no one who will help keep Requests for comment/Mattisse 3 on track? Editors are posting commentary outside of the sections where they belong, and independent moderation of the page might help. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 21:28, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Looking for information on Evacuation of Children in WW2
Hi im about to start work on a Novel based on a refugee who was evacuated during the Second world war and their experiences during their time away from their loved ones. The novel is fiction but would like some accurate events and time scales to base the story on. Keen to talk to anyone who was evacuated or knows some who was and find out lots of info !

Thanks Suzanne —Preceding unsigned comment added by Magicpen12 (talk • contribs) 12:44, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Hoboken, New Jersey
I first posted a RFC on November 29. It expired and was removed from the list. It was reposted January 1 or so. Currently, we have been waiting 5 weeks or so for a comment. I realize that this is labor intensive and you only have so many experts who have volunteered but the response time seems a bit slow. Can anything be done to accelerate this request since it is quite old? Thanks.Student7 (talk) 13:23, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Diffs appear not to work; working as intended?
This Reason is displaying with the diff curtailed to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Huns&diff ; the same is true of the previous entry and diff. " Revision for encyclopedic style and omitting hyperbole and nationalistic ideas, or irresponsible removal of large amounts of valuable and referenced work? Editors cannot agree, please comment on this diff: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Huns&diff=257284072&oldid=257168717 " I have no idea whether this is a bug that can be fixed or just the way it goes and oh well, and since I didn't make the RFC I can't say if it started out working and now doesn't, but thought I should bring it up. Anarchangel (talk) 02:35, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

stale
There is a link in the see also Requests for expansion 'when you want help expanding an article instead of help resolving a dispute'. It appears the project is inactive and now historical, ahould probably be removed? LeeVJ (talk) 01:12, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

User page
started an RFC/U today about. None of the normal processes seem to have been followed (except alerting the user), so I've retro-fitted a template to the original complaint and added the dispute to the RFC/U page. I am unclear about why this is proceeding to RFC/U, so my description on the list of candidate pages is tentative and I would be happy to have any person improve it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:30, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Is separate section really needed?
Is a separate section really needed for the RFC? Extensive discussion has already occurred (and stalled), but I think any RFC section would just say "Look at the above section." Could I perhaps simply place the template in the section where discussion has already occurred? A baby turkey[citation needed] 20:14, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, you can do that. You can also create a subsection (===RFC comments here===) if you want to (attempt to) provide a little distinction between the RFC-related comments and the previous discussion.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:17, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

start with archiving?
I've undone Ncmvocalist's process changes, which seem ill advised. Ncm was asked about this on his talk but did not respond... per WP:BRD, he was bold, I reverted, so let's now discuss... whether we should, for example, start with archiving, and should not talk to gathering information as the first step, among other issues. ++Lar: t/c 22:25, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I consider your edit ill-advised Lar: I'd reverted the bold edit involving moving the archiving section, so rather than reverting to a disputed bold version, the better solution would have been for you to move it to the original version prior to any bold edits. In any case, that's been done for you - I've now reverted to the original version as of 18 January 2009 prior to any bold edits thereafter. To avoid any of these problems, significant changes "should be" discussed before they're made to long-standing edits, especially for these pages. Anyway....
 * I see a few overlapping issues; will comment on them shortly. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:59, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, of course, if you'd actually brought your concerns to this talk page (before or after your edits) instead of just making changes sans any explanation whatever, or if you'd responded to the query on your talk page, it would have avoided confusion. I stand behind my revert, since it's forced you to discuss. It's BRD not BBRD. So, I stand behind my characterization of your editing in this case as ill-advised. I'll comment further on the substantive issues later. ++Lar: t/c 12:24, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Please don't make sweeping assertions, because they're simply not founded on facts. If I was given a reasonable time to respond to the query on my page, this wouldn't be an issue - most people aren't expected to be on Wikipedia 24/7. Sadly, it appears, you do not think I fall into that category. Despite this, the revision you reverted to was inappropriate and ill-considered because it was still moving to an undiscussed (and clearly disputed bold revision); one should be able to expect that an experienced user would revert to a revision that is least likely to provoke a greater dispute. Even where my edit is a partially bold edit and a partial reversion (in response to the initial bold edit), the suitable thing to do would be to revert the bold edits to the long-standing text revision. This would be a temporary resolution that everyone involved would be ok with; this is not an exceptional case where any bold edit is given greater weight on the basis of BLP or NPOV. It's troubling that you fail to realise or acknowledge the fact that the limited consideration you give to some of your edits can cause greater disputes and divisions. That said, I won't waste anymore time on this overall point - I, like others, have stopped expecting users of your standing to respond more appropriately to valid criticism(s). Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:15, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * WhatamIdoing perhaps should have discussed before making the change, but his was the initial edit that was bold, and if reverted, it was that reversion (i.e.... yours) that should immediately have been brought here to be discussed. By you. You should know that, and your evading that does you no credit. It should not have taken another editor reverting again to force this to the talk page.. As for responding appropriately to valid criticisms... look to the beam in your own eye before you speak of the mote in others. Your track record in that area does you no credit either. My talk page is always open and I have never told another editor in good standing they were "not welcome" on it. Nor do I archive things away just because they make me uncomfortable. ++Lar: t/c 12:14, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * And again, I'd have reverted to the original version, if I was given a reasonable amount of time to respond. Sure, we wouldn't have necessarily brought it to this particular talk page immediately, but we would've certainly discussed it before proceeding further - i.e. your point is moot. If I was "uncomfortable" about anything on Wikipedia, I would not be vocal in any regard. I archive things when I'm of the view that they are ready to be, especially when I did not enjoy the relevant discussion. Your standing is such that you carry more responsibilities than I (or most other editors) do - with that, you're expected to have the willingness and ability to manage conflict, criticisms and other issues (for that matter) more appropriately; and indirectly, at a higher standard. Your failure to demonstrate this was what led to a rare occasion where I made it clear that you were unwelcome on my talk page - where users genuinely provoke more heat than light, I'd rather they don't insert their 2 cents at every opportunity. Instead, I hope such users respected those wishes and stayed away until the statement was indirectly revoked via a direct invitation to come back for discussion on that page. Despite this, you were just itching to note your 2 cents, you didn't hold back, and you were greeted with a predictable response as a consequence. It wouldn't have escalated so far if it was a mere mote. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:26, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You're focusing on your talk page too much. Simply put, the original edit by WhatamIdoing should have been preceded by or accompanied by some discussion here, because it was substantive enough that discussion was warranated. On that we are both agreed, I think. But you, as an experienced editor, should not have compounded the error by reverting without discussion. You should have discussed it AS SOON AS YOU REVERTED. No prompting on your talk page should have even been needed, so how long it took you to (not) respond is of interest but it's not the main point, which is... this should have come here without WhatamIdoing, or you, needing to be prompted about it. Don't you agree? So let's carry on with the discussion and you can do better next time. As for the rest, I'll be happy to work through it all with you, come one over to my talk page and let us talk it through to some amicable accomodation. ++Lar: t/c 16:54, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * If I'm focussing on anything, it's your approach - you continued to make sweeping assertions about my talk page that were simply not found on facts. It would have been helpful if Whatamidoing's bold change was accompanied by some discussion; it would have been helpful if my subsequent revert/change was accompanied by some discussion. Both Whatamidoing and myself should've spent a bit more time before (or straight after) performing our changes so as to ensure that a difference in opinion no longer exists. The fact that I performed a partial revert as opposed to a full revert signifies my desire for some sort of change to the instructions - that was a view we shared. Still, our differences in opinion on how it's presented weren't settled and Whatamidoing approached me accordingly, and I'd have reverted to the original version (until discussion was complete and it was resolved) when I logged in next.


 * Yet, you refused to grant me a reasonable time to respond (via a reply or self-revert or otherwise), and you reverted to the version that I clearly disputed. This is troubling, especially so, when combined with the fact that I recently confirmed that you are still one of the few users that are not welcome on my talk page, given previous conflict. In the light of the above, your actions were ten times worse than the lack of actions performed by Whatamidoing, and myself. The only positive is that more users can become involved by the discussion coming here than staying on user talk pages at first. Whether you intentionally/thoughtlessly insist on trying to provoke further disputes, or whether you persistently refuse to appropriately respond to valid criticisms for some other reason, it is incompatible with your status on Wikipedia; not just as an experienced editor either. Please stop beating a dead horse or acting in denial - the issues are spelt out clearly this time and there is no excuse whatsoever to avoid making an assurance that you'll be more considerate (and do better) next time. This is my final response to you on this. As for your offer, I'll definitely consider it if I've changed my mind about this project - one of the benefits of retiring is that repeatedly encountering needless bs on here will be a thing of the past. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:26, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think that we need to spend any more effort on assigning the blame. I think that you and Lar are aware of each other's views on that point, and that neither of you will convince the other.  Let's move on to the solution step, okay?  WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:33, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, now to the merits of the bold edits. The bold edit seeks to add the following paragraph: Since simple disputes can be easily resolved without resorting to this step, RfCs for users typically involve fairly complex situations. Assembling all the necessary information, writing careful and accurate descriptions, and finding diffs that show exactly the behavior that concerns the filers can sometimes take several days. Often, it's best to start collecting this information on your own computer or in a subpage of your userspace before filing the RfC, because once the RfC has been formally created, you have only 48 hours to have it certified before the RfC will be deleted. There is already a section on uncertified RFCS. Also, RFCs involve a variety of situations; some more complex, and some more simple. While it's true that complex RFCs may take several days, there's no need to state the obvious. Editors are made aware of what they need to fill out when generating an RFC form. In some cases, parties who spend an exceptional amount of detail by working on it over a number of days may receive a nasty shock of receiving nearly no responses - by contrast, parties who spent a brief amount of time (even a couple of hours) may receive more worthwhile responses. I therefore see no substantial value in adding this extra chunk of text.
 * Another significant change is adding 4 different steps. The original version does seem to be less confusing, less long-winded, and more to the point. However, I think the bold edit does have one very good addition about notifying editors. Technically, that's also been covered in the link WP:RFC, provided in the "uncertified RFC" section. Perhaps this is the right time for me to suggest merging that into this page? Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:46, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I split up the process into four labeled, numbered steps, because I've seen a relatively experienced editor go through this process twice in the last week without success. Note that this didn't add four steps:  it merely split up the existing, long, seamless, and apparently obscure process into four manageable, concrete, separate steps.  The four steps are:
 * Assemble the evidence (a step that may take just two minutes or more than two weeks: I don't assert that every RfC/U needs dozens of diffs).
 * Create a subpage.
 * List the subpage.
 * Alert involved users.
 * I don't really see how an editor can create a useful RfC/U without doing these four things.
 * I also think that it's silly to list the instructions for closing and archiving RfC/U pages before the pages are created. I also added a link to Editor review because of a self-filed RfC/U a while ago, which, although it was driven by a pattern of disputes, probably should have been taken to ER instead of RfC/U.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:32, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I think it's silly hiding it at the bottom of the page (most people don't scroll that far down) when it's part of instructions. More users come to this page to respond to RFCs as outside views than anything else - it should be clear when RFCs should no longer be listed. I myself am opposed to self-filed RFCs so I think a link to editor review could be a good idea (in fact, I'd support making a specific mention in the instructions somewhere) - that said, in general, the community seem to be okay with self-filed RFCs.
 * Now to the 4 step idea, which I don't support - those steps are needed for all 3 types of RFCs; general, admin and bots. Rather than placing it in one of those sections, I think an "instructions rewrite" to include those details I mentioned in my previous reply would be more worthwhile. Early next week, I'll post a suggestion-version on a subpage - will post a link to it here so you, and others, can take a look. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, I think the 4 steps made explicit is a significant improvement over what was here before. I agree it was confusing and in need of being turned into clearer process steps. ++Lar: t/c 12:14, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I think a few of the ideas are good, but the execution is not so satisfactory - hence, the old setup. I'm expecting that something will be ready to look at early next week which hopefully makes it more clearer, and reducing the need to use multiple pages as opposed to one central RFC/U page. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:26, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't agree. I further don't think you have consensus for that view either. The list adds value (as lists of steps often do) and we should go with it instead of the unstructured material. So I would suggest that another reversion is needed. More voices may get a better consensus to appear though. ++Lar: t/c 16:54, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * NCM, I don't understand what the statement "reducing the need to use multiple pages as opposed to one central RFC/U page" means. What multiple pages are you talking about?  WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:04, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Requests_for_comment and WP:RFC/U are the ones that immediately come to my mind. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:26, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think that it's appropriate to merge the RfC/U page into the main RfC page. I don't think it is appropriate to remove RfC/U from the main RfC page.  Therefore we're stuck with two pages.  However, I'd be happy to have the balance of the two pages 'rationalized'.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:33, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * My bad; by merge, I wasn't thinking of removing that from the main RFC page. Rather, I was thinking of, in a sense, including the missing content from the RFC/U page that seems to only be on the main RFC page. For example, if I'm not mistaken, the RFC/U page says nothing about notifying the subject of the RFC - that instruction is only contained on the main RFC page. So, I was hoping people could refer to the RFC/U page for all instructions if they wish, rather than being forced to navigate back to the main RFC page to fill in some of the gaps. I hope that clarifies what I was thinking - perhaps that's what you also meant in your last sentence? Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:58, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Here is my first draft - I've included the evidence idea for now. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:17, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

about the draft
(Undent) In general, I'm happy with your idea about having all the information on the RFC/U page, rather than having a few critical bits stuck on the main RFC page (which should probably retain most of that information). However, in general, I do not see your version as an improvement over mine, although there are a few points of clear improvement (Step 4, for example). From my initial reading, I have a list of specific concerns, ranging from minor to serious:


 * 1) The long list of dab links should precede the actual page content, per WP:ACCESS.
 * 2) "''To report spam, page blanking..." doesn't seem necessary.
 * 3) I don't think that removal of a page from RFC/U's list of cases should precede instructions on how to get the thing listed there in the first place.  It feels very much like, "Congratulations on deciding to start a family.  Now the first thing we should do is to plan your funeral, because everyone dies eventually."
 * 4)  I don't think that the "structure" is properly listed under the "Rules" section heading.
 * 5) Under "Guidelines", I'd tone down the statement that "These are not policies or "rules", but advice on how most RfCs are run", because some of the items in that list aren't actually considered optional.  For example, there's no 'optional' aspect to "An RfC may bring close scrutiny on all involved editors."
 * 6) The "Guidelines" list also requires some copyediting.  For example, the fourth and fifth items in the list are essentially redundant.  I also think that organizing the list by labeled topics is going to be helpful to the average editor (whose interaction with the list is most likely to be "Where was that detail again -- I know I saw it somewhere on one of these pages.")  I significantly prefer my recent version of this text, as it was both better written and more comprehensive.
 * 7) I'm not sure that your Step 1 (read these directions) is necessary, since a 'frequent flier' in the RfC/U pages doesn't need to read them every time, and anyone who is aware of the rule is already complying with it.  It's like saying, "If you are dead, you cannot file an RfC/U."  I think that text properly belongs to the previous section, since "Instructions" is really "Instructions on STARTING an RfC/U", not on conducting one.
 * 8) Critically, your step-by-step process fails to actually create the necessary subpage in the RfC !namespace.
 * 9) Step 3 should probably list the categories in the same order that they're present on the RfC/U page.  Your current list is reverse order.
 * 10) Is there a link to WP:DR on the page?

There are probably a few more issues, but these are my thoughts after reading through it for the first time. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:00, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The only real changes (I think) I've proposed at the beginning of the page is to add what was included on the main RFC page (under the RFC/U section), yet for some reason missing on this RFC/U page.
 * I agree; I've removed the spam part from my draft.
 * I don't think this is incorrect; the emphasis is on the word 'may'. It doesn't always bring close scrutiny on all involved editors, but at the discretion of those looking at or producing the RFC, they can. That's more a matter of semantics than anything else.
 * This is just a direct copy/paste of what is already on the page - I didn't bother merging these points as it is one that needs emphasis. Even experienced contributors often seem to forget it. Perhaps there is a better way of putting emphasis on this point though?
 * I think Step 1 is required either in that spot, or at the top of the page. If experienced editors have already read through it, then great! But if editors who are new to filing an RFC, or new to responding in an RFC, have not read them, or are not familiar with the conventions, that's when problems are encountered when they try to (or claim that they can) skip this step and go straight towards creating an RFC. Maybe this text can be moved up to the top and bolded.
 * I don't follow what you're trying to say here - the only difference between your instructions and mine is that you've made a "create your subpage" section which, while is fine for a general conduct RFC, is quite clearly a problem when compared to the expected format of Bot-RFCs or Admin-RFCs. Could you clarify?
 * That was deliberate; ALL RFCs that do not fall into bot or admin categories should be in general user conduct is important to note. People often forget that an admin category exists for admin conduct. Perhaps this can be remedied by moving the "general user conduct" RFC section to the bottom of the page?
 * There is now.


 * Please keep them coming. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:44, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I've switched my original bullets to numbers for clarity.
 * 3: Your revised version still provides all of the information about delisting RfC pages before any of them get listed.  I don't insist that this section be placed at the very end of the page, but it is plainly illogical to remove pages before they even exist.  "Your as-yet non-existent page will eventually be deleted" is not a sensible starting point.
 * 4: Your slightly revised version still refers to the structure of the page as "rule".  Rules are about actions.  This is just a brief description of the typical page layout.
 * 5: It's true that not all RfC/Us will result in all parties' actions being reviewed.  However, if anyone chooses to do so, then none of the involved editors can demand that their own faults not be considered.  "Hey, this is about the other guy, not me!" is neither functional nor permitted.  Filing editors (in particular) do not have the right to say, "That's an optional suggestion, and not how we choose to run this particular RfC/U, so quit bringing up my mistakes."
 * 6: Yes, the bad writing style is one of the problems I attempted to address.  Additionally, my version much more strongly emphasized the use of the RfC/U's talk page, without resorting to redundancy.
 * 7: I don't object to telling people to read the instructions somewhere on the page.  I am not convinced that Step 1 is the best place to do so.
 * 8: All user RfCs use subpages.  Only general conduct pages have an optional button to click to create the subpage, but 100% of RfC/U filings are on subpages.  There should therefore be a numbered step in the instructions on starting an RfC/U that tells the editor to create the subpage.  This section may do nothing more than refer the user to the correct section for the templates, but the user cannot "List your RfC in the correct category" (the next step) if no RfC/U subpage exists to list.  It might be possible to move the misplaced "rule" about layout (see #4) to this section.
 * 9: Reversing the page order to match the description is okay with me, although I think the bold-face text in your numbered list ought to be sufficiently attention-getting.  Also, I think that the more common problem is "admin" RfC/U pages being created for non-admin actions.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:41, 8 February 2009 (UTC)


 * 3. I strongly feel that this section must remain at the beginning - parties are often very sensitive when they find an RFC that they filed (or wanted to file) is delisted or completely deleted. To avoid that complete cycle of extreme emotion for adversely affected parties, this quite plainly puts forward that (1) an RFC can be removed without notice, and (2) how/why that can happen. Additionally, other than as an archiving point, this emphasises that certain formalities need to be done in order for one to go through this step in DR.
 * 4. It's definitely a rule, though I agree, that bullet point was worded poorly so that it sounded more like a guideline. See revised version.
 * 5. Actually, that's not true. There's nothing preventing any editor from making such a demand. The catch is that as it is optional, there is nothing preventing other editors from ignoring such a demand either. That has occurred in the past too. Further, in terms of those who aren't the subject of the RFC or the filing party, but are still involved in the matter, it may be legitimate to demand that their conduct be a separate RFC on their conduct.
 * 6. It is perhaps my primary concern that you failed to address that problem though, and your text appears more confusing. Keeping it as concise as possible, with emphasis where needed, is the way to go. I think my revised version is better at doing that.
 * 7. I don't see the lack of benefit in leaving it as step 1 for now though. I'm not sure it'll serve much purpose at the beginning of the page - in listing it as step 1, at least it can serve as a reminder.
 * 8. but the user cannot "List your RfC in the correct category" (the next step) if no RfC/U subpage exists to list. And why not? It would appear as a redlink, after which they can click on the page and paste the template. Though I know what you're trying to say with regards to an optional button: maybe we should make an "optional button" in the other two categories so that they get the right template to begin with, and at the same time, it creates a subpage?
 * 9. I haven't come across that problem so far, but I have had to move a few RFCs down from general to admin....
 * Cheers, Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:15, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

3. Why does closing a completed RfC/U need to come before creating it? I understand why you want to make the de-listing step obvious. (I think that's a good thing to do, but I think it would be better to make it a numbered step in chronological order (e.g., Assemble evidence, Create page, Notify involved users, Get page certified or it will be promptly deleted) instead of sticking it at the top of the page, with no context or connection to anything else.

But why do the instructions on archiving a (fully discussed/entirely resolved/dumped to ArbComm/participants got bored and left) approved RfC/U need to appear before information about starting the RfC/U? Why can't the instructions for archiving go at the end, since the last thing that happens to an RfC/U page is archiving?

5. When you have a handful of editors in a single dispute and they are all behaving badly, it makes no sense whatsoever to suggest that we have multiple RfC/U's so that we can discuss each editor's behavior in isolation. Furthermore, there is no indication in the existing long-standing text to suggest that an editor can brush off his own contribution to a dispute at his/her own discretion. This is not a general suggestion on how most RfC/Us are run; it belongs in the "Rules" section.

6. (See below)

7. I don't mind "Read the instructions" being Step 1. I do object to it replacing the necessary step of creating a subpage.

8. The RfC/U cannot happen if no subpage exists for it to happen on. The instructions must tell the user to create a page. It makes sense to have this step before listing a redlink, because the editor needs to know what the page name is going to be (in case of multiple RfC/Us for a single editor), and if the editor doesn't happen to know about the presence or absence of previous RfC/U pages, then the process of creating the subpage is a reliable method of discovery.

About the differences for instructions: It seemed to me that a side-by-side comparison might be useful.


 * Anyone is allowed to post their own view, in a separate section with their name on it, such as ==View by == It can be helpful to indicate the viewpoint of the particular editor, such as "Outside view" "Inside view" "Semi-involved view" etc.
 * In most cases those who brought the RfC do not post individualized views, since the initial statement already indicates their thoughts, but in some cases they may wish to post an additional individualized view to clarify their opinion. Either method is acceptable.
 * Other users can endorse a view, by adding their signature to the list after that view. Along with their signature, they may wish to offer a clarifying comment of one or two sentences, for example if they agree with all but one particular part of the view. Longer responses than that should probably go into their own "View" section.
 * All signed comments that are neither a view nor an endorsement, should be directed to the talk page, as with any other types of discussion.
 * Outside parties may endorse as many views as they wish, including the original RfC statement and/or the subject's response. Involved parties are also permitted to endorse as many views as they wish. Ideally, there will be some view(s) that both sides of the involved parties can endorse.
 * Only endorse views with which you agree. Do not post "disagreement" endorsements. The lack of a signature is sufficient indication that there may be some disagreement with the statement.
 * An RfC may bring close scrutiny on all involved editors. The Arbitration Committee closely considers evidence and comments in RfC if the editors involved in the RfC are later named in a request for arbitration. Filing an RfC is not a step to be taken lightly or in haste.
 * In most cases, editors named in an RfC are expected to respond to it. The Arbitration Committee considers a response or lack of it, as well as the comments and endorsements from the community, if the matter ends up being escalated to arbitration.


 * Share your opinion
 * Any editor is allowed to post his or her own view, in a separate section with his or her name on it, such as ==View by == It can be helpful to indicate the viewpoint of the particular editor, such as "Outside view", "Inside view", "Semi-involved view", or other descriptive statement. In most cases those who brought the RfC do not post individual views, since the initial statement already indicates their thoughts, but in some cases they may wish to post an additional individual view to clarify their opinions; this is permitted.
 * The person named in the RfC always has a dedicated section for his or her view and is strongly encouraged to use that section to explain his or her side of the situation.
 * Any editor can endorse any view by adding his or her signature to the list after that view. Normally, endorsements are simply a signature ( ~ ).  However, an editor may occasionally wish to offer a brief clarifying comment of one or two sentences (for example, if the editor agrees with all but one particular part of the view).  This is permitted, but endorsement comments that are longer than about two sentences should probably go into a separate "View" section.
 * Any editor, including the subject of the RfC, can endorse any view. Ideally, there will be some view(s) that all sides of the involved parties can endorse.  You may endorse as many views as you wish. You may also endorse the original RfC statement, and/or the subject's response.  Only endorse views with which you agree. Do not post "disagreement" endorsements:  The absence of your signature is sufficient indication that you do not entirely agree with the statement.


 * Use the talk page
 * Talk page conversations are important for resolving disputes, and centralized discussions are more efficient and effective than fragmented discussions. Please use the RfC/U's talk page, not the RfC/U page itself, article talk pages, or involved editors' user talk pages, for relevant discussion.
 * Unless you are (1) posting a "View by ", (2) endorsing another view or (3) asking for clarification in a designated questions section (used only in some templates), then whatever you want to say almost certainly belongs on the discussion page. Every RfC/U has a talk page:   Chat, threaded comments, complaints about other editors' errors or misrepresentation, and all other kinds of discussion belong on the talk page.
 * Discussion always belongs on the talk page for that RfC/U. If discussion happens on the RfC/U page, it can be copied to the talk page; please don't simply delete other editors' comments simply because they were placed on the wrong page.

You seem to find the second column (seven bullets split into two sections) wordy. I find the first column (although improved with recent changes) to be disorganized. If you look at it, it gives information about views-views-views-oops, jump to talk page behavior-more about views-views-skip to unrelated statement about scrutiny on everyone-back to views (of the named editor). At minimum they should be grouped according to their subject. As for general writing style, there's an inappropriate use of passive voice, and it uses "their" in the singular. In the second bullet, it's not clear what the "either method" refers to. In the fifth bullet, it makes a statement about "outside editors" and then repeats exactly the same information about involved editors.

I do not think that it is the best we can do. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:23, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * 3. I don't think so. I think people will avoid reading that when it's hidden at the bottom of the page, and I feel strongly enough to insist that it remains as it has. Additionally, there's only 2 circumstances under which an RFC will be delisted - there's absolutely no compelling reason that we need to separate these 2 circumstances.


 * 5. I think that's too simplistic a view, and it would end up being yet another RFC that is delisted due to complete inactivity. Not everyone is willing and/or able to spend that much time looking at one massive dispute. Additionally, when so many editors conduct problems stretch over more than one area (but not necessarily the same areas), it would be futile trying to examine each and every one of their conduct in the same RfC. Let me remind you: an RFC is named after an editor and created by others who are finding problems with that editor. An RFC is not named after a problem area.


 * 7. Huh? It's not acting to replace anything; it's a new step on its own.


 * 8. It appears, for this point, you have not even read my response in full, for you have completely danced around it and repeated yourself from before. So I ask you respond to what I've said so I can add it or keep it out of my revised version.


 * 6. Merely dragging it out over more lines is unhelpful, especially when you use more words than necessary. I've revised my version again to make it even more concise because I think yours goes to the other extreme, and what's worse is, your version does it so unnecessarily. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:50, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Are you willing to update the page with the parts that we have agreed on? What's there is clearly worse than either proposal, and I have no objections to incremental change.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:16, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't mind incremental change, but what are the parts you think we agree on (or if it's easier, what are the parts that will stay as it is now)? Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:21, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The top of the page, your idea about re-ordering the three sections, the addition of the information currently on the regular RFC page seem like straightforward steps. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:34, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * No probs. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:01, 15 February 2009 (UTC)