Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment

Template:Wikipedia ad exists

Archives
For why RfC was created, see Archive at WP:Resolving disputes Archive 1 Archive 2: Feb 2004–May 2005 Archive 3: May 2005–Sep 2005 Archive 4: Sep 2005–Oct 2005 Archive 5: Oct 2005–May 2006 Archive 6: May 2006–Dec 2006 Archive 7: Jan 2007–Jun 2007 Archive 8: July 2007–Dec 2007 Archive 9: Jan 2008-Feb 2009 Archive 10: Feb 2009-May 2009

"One view per editor"

I could have sworn that I had read something somewhere advising that each editor should typically submit only a single view - endorsing other views is fine - but not to attempt to give their opinions undue weight by submitting multiple views. Did I imagine this? –xeno^talk 21:04, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Single views are indeed normal practice, but limiting editors to a single view hasn't been 'required' for at least a long time (if ever). There are circumstances in which two separate views might be reasonable, e.g., "The parts of my view that I think everyone will endorse" and "The parts of my view that I doubt anyone will endorse" -- or "Yesterday's view" and "Today's view, now that I've really looked into this."

The overall goal is to resolve the dispute. If posting two views moves the dispute closer to resolution, then it is a Good Thing and should be embraced. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:37, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

In any discussion, if an editor attempts to dominate the discussion either through Walls O' Text or posting countless messages, that person risks being sanctioned; I see people who do that receive topic bans at the very least. Like WhatamIdoing, I think that multiple views should be allowed if they help the RfC. If they overdo it, they should be treated as they would be in any other discussion; given a gentle warning, then a stern talking-to, and eventually face sanctions if they persist. -- Atama頭 17:56, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I found the single view instruction. It says, "Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse" -- at the top of the RfC/User template, where it's been present (but apparently ignored) for years.

This type of instruction probably belongs on another page, e.g., here, and it should definitely be modified to reflect reality (perhaps by the addition of the word "normally"). WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:29, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

What should be done?

There are no active users listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Economics and there seems to be nobody monitoring the page Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Economy, trade, and companies. Should that page have a warning that RfCs posted there may not actually get any attention, and should be pursued elsewhere? Should that page be temporarily closed?

Additionally, I am reiterating my request that there be more transparency and more a obvious, user-friendly indicator (links) of where else to take an issue if the place you're supposed/recommended to take it is open with nobody home. Abrazame (talk) 00:54, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

One of the main issues here is that we have no way of tagging independent editors who are responding to the RfC as opposite to comments by editors involved in the issue which gave rise to the RfC. One way that I can think of would be to create an additional {{rcf-indresp|~~~}} tag and invite the independent editors to prefix this to their response. The rfcbot could then to tweaked to count the rfc-indresps following an rfctag, and this would allow a roll-up of response volumes and an escallation process for RfCs that have less than (say) 3 responses. Anyway just a lateral thought on this. -- TerryE (talk) 02:08, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Currently, more than 150 editors have the Econ RfC page on their watchlists. That number doesn't include those who have it bookmarked on their own computers (which is what I do with the Science RfC page). During the month of February, the page was viewed 1,151 separate times. These are not stats that favor closing the page as unused.

Furthermore, responses at other RfCs on the page indicate that editors are reading the requests and responding to some of them. If none of those editors choose to respond to your question, then there really is nothing that we can do about that.

Please consider the implications of WP:Wikipedia is a volunteer service: You are able to request comments, but you are not guaranteed comments from volunteer editors. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:07, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

The econ project responded (Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Economics#Who is currently active at WikiProject Economics). I agree that this is very unfortunate, and lack of comments should be considered a type of backlog/dysfunction. If an editor can look for help but not find it anywhere, this essentially means that the most aggressive editor wins. Have you tried other venues such as WP:RS/N and WP:THIRD? Were you aware of these other venues - should we note that they are other options in the lead? II | (t - c) 08:06, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

You mean by listing these options at Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Before_requesting_comment... where suggested alternatives have been listed for as long as I can remember?

It might be more pointful to require the editors to read the directions, but that proposal, I think, is doomed. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:52, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Abrazame, one thing you might consider is asking a narrower question, instead of "Is this article totalled?" Maurreen (talk) 21:49, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Another option is that people have been using WP:VP informally as RFC. Maurreen (talk) 06:34, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I've just gone through and commented on a number of these articles, but to A's underlying assertion that the list is moribund, I think what we really need here is some quantitative data, so we can turn this into a objective assessment rather than a subjective one. I have some ideas on this. Let me bounce them off Harej first and then I'll post back here. -- TerryE (talk) 15:37, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

RFC overuse?

I wonder whether issue-oriented RFCs are being overused. It seems like sometimes they are used on questions that could and should be settled among the editors already involved. Maurreen (talk) 07:08, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think this is a solvable problem: If an editor doesn't have enough judgment to avoid posting a needless RfC, then the editor doesn't have enough judgment to determine whether it's needless.

Additionally, the fact that average Wikipedia editors could normally settle something doesn't mean that the specific editors are able to agree on anything at all. Sometimes the RfC indicates a dysfunctional editing environment rather than the question that is nominally being asked. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:58, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Good points. I was mainly wondering if anyone else had the same observation. Maurreen (talk) 13:08, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Surely, use of the RfC is one step in the resolution process. For example, if the relationship between one or more editors and the rest of the editors on a controversial page has broken down to the point that some are no longer following WP:ETIQ, then discussion is clearly not working. WP:3O is only applicable for 1-1 disputes. Looking across the current RfCs, questions to the projects rarely seem to help. Experienced editors can completely frustrate the healthy functioning of page development whilst avoiding triggering WP:3RR, WP:CIVIL, etc.. So what is the next step in such cases? It certainly isn't WP:RFAR. I would have thought WP:RFC is the proportionate next step in such circumstances. If there is a material issue of abuse of RfCs here, then wouldn't some objective and evidence based analysis be worthwhile? -- TerryE (talk) 16:36, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that it's a really question of 'abuse', although that happens (see the four Newman Luke-related RfC/U pages for an example). There are (and have always been) some RfCs for which no dispute exists. These are, generally speaking, unnecessary and therefore 'overuse' of the process. The one listed by Abrazame is a good example: He (or she) could have chosen to boldly improve the page without advance discussion. There was no dispute at that neglected article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:11, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Hummm, OK fair point. Why not consider a mod to the RfC practice so that if a reviewing edit feels that the RfC is wrongly classified then he or she can insert recommendation for a WP:30 request or whatever between the {{rfctag}} and the RfC text. It would be easy to create a template for this. This will (i) flag up to other editors that it is a waste of time coming to this RfC and (ii) point the originating editor to the correct process to use. -- TerryE (talk) 20:48, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Because knowing what the filing editor really hopes to accomplish requires an advanced level of mind-reading skills.

There's no rule that prevents an editor from responding to an RfC with "Hey, you could just be bold!" or (if there are exactly two editors involved, which doesn't apply to Abrazame's RfC) "Have you considered removing the RfC and listing the question at WP:3O?" -- but if we institutionalize a process for a unilateral/undiscussed 'downgrade', then we'll have well-intentioned editors involved in avoidable disputes.

Put another way: There's no good reason for the responding editor not to kindly suggest a simpler and faster process, rather than imposing it forcibly, especially if the responding editor is not omniscient. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:03, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Can I ask for minimum requirements check of a RfC here?

Hello, can someone give it a look to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Erebedhel it has been filed since January but haven't been listed properly and other than the filling party the only activity was a user who said that it will go nowhere besides on ANI it was been requested that these RfC stop [1], and it has been inactive for nearly 50 days now.

Secondly it doesn't meet with the Minimum requirements review the links in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Erebedhel#Evidence of trying to resolve the dispute, first of all there is no evidence of the second user who signed Unknown Lupus trying to solve the dispute, besides of the 4 links 2 of them are direct links to a mediation cabal and a formal mediation both product of a previous Rfc on his conduct Wikipedia:Requests for comment/MarshalN20 and where my initiative, and the mediation cabal failed for this the other link is a fight where he insulted me several times, and the other link where he claims he is asking me to not insult him, it's clearly cooked because in the above comment I wasn't insulting him I was requesting that this person stop insulting me.

In Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Erebedhel#Evidence of failing to resolve the dispute happens the same, even he puts as evidence when I said thank you to another editor.

I believe this RfC should be deleted as uncertified besides it won't go anywhere else if the previous one I started is already on formal mediation. Thank you Erebedhel - Talk 21:38, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Maybe you should ask for deletion at WP:AN. Maurreen (talk) 16:21, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Minimum Requirements check for another RfC

Good day, could the minimum requirements be checked for the following RfC: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/MarshalN20. According to the Minimum requirements standards of the RfC community, it lacks the evidence of a second user attempting to resolve the issue. The user in question is User:RBCM (Who has neither a user page or talk page), who signed the RfC but failed to provide any "evidence showing that he tried and failed to resolve the same dispute." The issue in question was my alleged conduct problem in the Diablada article.

The RfC in question has been open for nearly 6 months, and so there has been plenty of time given for RBCM to provide evidence (All of the "evidence" has been provided by Erebedhel). Therefore, the RfC Wikipedia:Requests for comment/MarshalN20 should be deleted as it is uncertified appropiately (i.e., it fails the minimum requirements). Best regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 16:03, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Maybe you should ask for deletion at WP:AN. Maurreen (talk) 16:08, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I will do that as well. Thank you Maurreen.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 16:17, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Controversial command decisions, World War II

I request Admin comment on what happened there. The article was until recently named "Western Betrayal" and it was about the feeling in central European countries that there were abandoned by France and United Kindgom in face of the Nazi German expansion. Whether and to what degree such a feeling is justified is of course debatable but obviously the topic was more than relevant enough to have an article on wikipedia. And the article in it's relatively stable form existed for a couple years. Here is the state of the article on on 22 February 2010. [2] Lately user user:Communicat appeared on the article and started a huge rewriting, removed the most important parts of the article which included literally every single word about Poland from the article. I honesty couldn't believe my eyes when I saw that. Similarly the sections about Czechoslovakia, Estonia, Yugoslavia etc have all been wiped out. A little later the article was renamed to its current name Controversial command decisions, World War II which I am not sure what exactly is supposed to mean but most certainly doesn't have much to do with the initial topic of the article. Worse, the article still has a section named Western betrayal which now contains a lot of text about what Stalin felt was the Western Betrayal, a new section about "The missing front" where we read about Soviet Marshall Georgy Zhukov disappointment about the lack of the second front and stuff like that etc etc. A short section about the Communist China was also added.

In my opinion the Admins take a look at the article and 1) restore the article under its proper name and 2) restore the parts about Poland, Czechoslovakia, Estonia, Yugoslavia and others which were deleted out... Unless this new method of completely destroying an article, by first removing all relevant text and then renaming it, which is de facto deletion, is now acceptable editing practice on wikipedia.  Dr. Loosmark  21:56, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

My understanding is that the information regarding Poland, Czechoslovakia, Estonia, Yugoslavia et al was actually moved to different articles. I personally think that this solution is better: the previous article was long (close to the maximum size under WP:EFAQ#SIZE) and a hodge-podge of different topic areas. To cover so much content in just one article will make the article too long, especially given the fact that we would also need to include the other POV for each ‘betrayal’ (e.g. in the section for Poland, that Britain declared war when German refused to withdraw from POland and then refused all peace offers that did not involve German withdrawal from Poland are just two of the many things which would need to be mentioned). Varsovian (talk) 10:50, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify: the "information" regarding Poland, Czechoslovakia, Estonia, Yugoslavia and others (basically what was the original article about) was not moved anywhere.  Dr. Loosmark  10:57, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I think you may be mistaken. Please see this diff [3]. Varsovian (talk) 11:12, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

No, I am not mistaken, the diff was already reverted by sb because it completely doesn't belong into that article.  Dr. Loosmark  11:21, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I stand corrected. Varsovian (talk) 12:22, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

The discussion page, in particular the sections commencing around 3 Mar 2010 and subsequently, records at length the interactions and editing rationale concerning renaming and reworking of the article Western Betrayal. Sorry if I've offended you, but the Western Betrayal article had been in a neglected state of disarray for number of years, e.g. verifications needed, key sources missing, etc. etc Communicat (talk) 12:36, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

While the article had its problems I completely disagree that it was in "a neglected state of disarray". If sources were missing that could have been easily rectified by requesting them. If the article was too long it could have been shortened or rewritten. The reality of the matter is that the core of the article (which was about the concept of "Western Betrayal" in Central European countries), was literally wiped out, replaced with the "fall of Singapure", some Soviet ideas of Western Betrayal and a short paragraph about communist China. And finally the title was changed from "Western Betrayal" into "Controversial command decisions". The original topic of the article article ceased to exist without a RfD or a request for move or anything.  Dr. Loosmark  12:51, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I've just nominated the current version of the article for deletion. I didn't realise that this RfC had been started until after lodging the AfD as no notification of it had been placed on the article's talk page, but I think that the present version of the article is entirely unviable and deletion the best option. Please note that much of the Western Betrayal article's content was moved by Communicat to Central and Eastern Europe, from which it was recently removed. Nick-D (talk) 22:26, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

RfC posting tool chokes on quotation marks

The RfC posting tool seems to fail when it encounters quotation marks in the body of the text. All text starting with the first mark is removed or gets lost. SharkD  Talk  10:24, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I have fixed this problem. harej 02:38, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

My RFC doesn't seem to be posting here

I submitted a RFC some time ago, but it hasn't appeared on the RFC:Biographies page yet. It was about deletion of external links to photos of living persons. Here is the talk page where the RFC template appears: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Peter_James_Bethune Ghostofnemo (talk) 08:06, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

User RfC process

The instructions for creating an RfC concerning user conduct are totally inadequate. I can't tell where to start, from a technical point of view. Jc3s5h (talk) 12:22, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry: I thought we'd fixed that a long time ago, but it seems that this page is remarkably unhelpful. It appears that most of what you need to know can be found through the five-box template at the top of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct. In particular, you'll want to look at the "Guidance" subpage.

It's possible that you would find this old version more helpful, although I suspect that the final instructions for listing the RfC have changed somewhat. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:59, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

If you read Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct/Guidance carefully you will find the link to the page at the bottom of which are the boxes for actually creating an RFCU. It is intentionally not made too easy to click and leap into - an RFCU is a serious thing and you must read the guidance properly. Rd232 ^talk 23:00, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I found myself quite lost too. I agree with funneling people to the guidance page, but I think the sections on General User Conduct, etc., were confusing about pointing to the guidance page with links to templates being more prominent. I've modified those sections to remove the templates, and put more focus on linking to the guidance pages. I'd also recommend delinking the last part of that sentance, "creating an RFC/U", to discourage skipping the guidelines for going straight to the creation page. --InkSplotch (talk) 23:53, 14 April 2010 (UTC)