Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment

Drawbacks with the current RFC process

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

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

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

No doubt this will be shot down in flames, but given the current situation where either small inside groups with the same POV can dominate RFCs, or two balanced inside groups can spin them into thousands of words of text without resolving anything, I think some action is required to ensure outside views are able to make an impact. Number 57 00:29, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

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

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

As mentioned, the RFC question should link to a section where the insiders' debate is taking place, so that outsiders can read through the whole thing before commenting. Number 57 00:40, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Or perhaps have two sections for RFC responses - involved and uninvolved? Number 57 00:41, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

The problem with removing the RFC banner is that it then leaves the discussions to the "insiders", who are the ones who have caused the problems in the first place. Number 57 10:08, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Request for admin to review apparent consensus

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2011 admin needed

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

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

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

Suspending RFC/Us

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

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

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

ANI and WP:DR

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

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

Yet another RfC/U debacle

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

1. The subject of an RfC/U should have the right to close discussion at any time. Just say "take it to AN/I or ArbCom if you think you have a case" and it ends. In an encyclopedia with "WP:no personal attacks" how can we have these giant ad hominem fests except by an editor's permission? If there's not going to be a voluntary resolution this process has no purpose.

1. The subject of the RfC/U likewise should have the right to strike out (or delete) inappropriate charges and irrelevant content. Ideally, he should propose it and get some people to agree with him, but in accordance with the last principle the process should only go ahead where the subject is willing to put up with it. Essentially, this process should become an extension of the User talk: page in that regard - people don't have to put up with nonsense. Likewise, the subject should have the right to strike out certain details (such as their real name) that bother them.

1. The "desired outcome" of an RfC/U must be sufficient. If five editors are going to take someone to task for some kind of bad editing, and ask that he voluntarily withdraw from one topic area or give up a privilege as a remedy, then this should mean that as long as he does so, they're not going to complain about him again, for anything that was mentioned during the RfC/U process. In fact, their agreement to the RfC/U outcome should be interpreted as actual !votes against further sanction in any subsequent administrative process. Think of it like a plea bargain - once you plead out, you don't get hit with more charges. Otherwise what's the point? That's why these things fizzle out and don't end, there's no carrot for the stick. You can't say the person's editing hasn't been looked at enough by that point. Now, there is a problem here in that the "desired outcome" could change during the process as facts come out; I think that it should not become more onerous after some early stage in the proceeding.

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

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

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