Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment

What is proper procedure when RfC result is ignored?

The situation is that an article content dispute was put to RfC, a resolution was reached and implemented, and the article has been stable in that form for several months. It has now been changed by one editor who is apparently dissatisfied with the course of editing on a different article (that he sees as analogous) and who, in consequence, has apparently decided that the entire RfC is now inapplicable.

The RfC process doesn't produce content that's cast in stone, and consensus can always be revisited. Nevertheless, it seems to me that good-faith editing requires that the outcome of the process be given at least some weight. No one editor can unilaterally decide that it should be ignored, at least when there's been no change in the underlying facts about the article subject.

I'm trying to reason with this editor on the article talk page, but I'm very pessimistic about getting anywhere.

I'm not linking because I don't want to start a thread here about a particular edit dispute. I'm looking for more general guidance about the RfC process -- specifically, what happens after the RfC is done. Starting another RfC to complain about the disregarding of the first RfC would seem to put us in an Achilles and the tortoise situation. JamesMLane t c 18:23, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Ignoring is such a harsh term. One RfC was done in tandom with another similar article, or at least much of the discussion between the two were related. One organization is run and was started by a liberal. The other organization was started by a conservative. The primary purpose of both organizations has little to do with their political points of view, and both proceed to WP:LABEL thenselves as non-partisan in their primary activities. Unfortunately the organization started by a conservatives had a few editors that insisted in trying to frame the organization as a conservative organization, while some of the same editors had a problem using the same rational to frame the organization started by a liberal as such under the rational of undue weight and NPOV. An uneasy truce emerged such that both were stated as non-partisan with the ideology of the founders stated, hence the source of the RfC. Over time the descriptors from the organization started by the liberal have been wiped clean under the previous statements of undue and npov. The agreement for the RfC was broken on the otherside. Similar organizations should be similarly identified so as to not give the impression that WP is biased to one particular ideolgy, a difficult task to say the least. James' analogy is more appropriate for the other article. An agreement was reached, and then over time modified to remove the liberal nature of the founder of the organization, and he is now upset that the same thing has been done to the other organization. Arzel (talk) 20:24, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

1. Arzel's arguments in the RfC turned in part on his opinions about the other article, as to which there was no RfC. He's certainly entitled to draw an analogy but the RfC was about only the article it referenced.

2. Arzel considers the disputed content about the two websites to be substantially identical. I strongly disagree, as I've explained on the relevant talk page, and I won't rehash that here, where the issue is post-RfC procedure.

3. Arzel's position, per the last sentence of his comment, amounts to saying: "After a resolved RfC about Article #1, someone made an edit to Article #2 that I think was wrong. Nevertheless, I won't edit Article #2, I won't edit its talk page, and I won't start a thread on the Article #1 talk page asking that the RfC be revisited. Instead, I'll just unilaterally declare that the RfC on Article #1 is now null and void." The issue for this thread is whether that's a proper approach to the RfC process. I think it is not. JamesMLane t c 21:22, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

A few points:

• The RFC at Article #1 does not give you any information about what should be done at Article #2. Therefore, if the editors at Article #1 agree not to mention ____ in Article #1, those very editors are still perfectly free to go mention exactly ____ at Article #2. Actions taken at Article #2 never violate or break or invalidate the agreement about what to include at Article #1.
• You don't get to declare the Article #1 agreement to be "broken" or to retaliate for people adding ____ to Article #2 by adding the agreed-to-be-omitted-from-#1 material ____ to Article #1. See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS for the general concept.
• If it's been long enough since the RFC agreement that you think the consensus might have changed at Article #1, or if someone has new reasons (ideally, reasons that won't make him look idiotic, which "someone added similar information to another article, and I believe that we should make both articles be equally bad" would), and general discussions on the talk page don't resolve them, then you can have a second (or third, or twenty-seventh, or whatever) RFC on the point at Article #1. The results of that RFC will only apply to Article #1.
• If you believe that Article #2 needs improvement, then Article #2 is equipped with its very own talk page, and you can start normal discussions, or (if those fail to resolve the question) an RFC about Article #2 and make a new, separate, independent decision about what's best for Article #2 (not Article #1) right there on Article #2's very own talk page.

None of this is rocket science. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:36, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

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)