Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard

Shackleton misdoings

It is not my purpose to discredit any kind of person,

but given the unjustified allegations and libel against Captain Robert Falcon Scott over Wikipedia (and its bunch of subsequent articles), I think anyone dedicated to a remotely balanced account of reality should be aware of this report and how starkly the "Wikipedian" account is limited to the resource of one single person that seems to be a lover of Ernest Shackleton:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/australasia/hero-who-rebelled-against-shackleton-is-honoured-with-statue-of-beloved-cat-6166876.html --Shacklewatch (talk) 22:38, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I've removed the huge blob of copyrighted text pasted here multiple times. That being said, I'm going to assume good faith and ask you to elaborate on what actual issue there is here. (For what it's worth, it certainly doesn't belong on this talk page, but someone can point you in the right direction, assuming there is a legitimate issue.) --Kinu ^t/_c 22:52, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

What? You're removing truths that editors happily try to be acknowledged by the public and at the same time, you are talking about "good faith"? >ou may take a look at Robert Falcon Scott's page and see what kind of [inhuman] reproaches he is exposed to and if he ever killed a cat by his own?--Shacklewatch (talk) 22:58, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

If you are still confused, Kinu, you are not alone. I can't tell if this is trolling, clue deficiency, a real problem, who knows. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 23:05, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Same issue at Talk:Ernest Shackleton#Hero who rebelled against Shackleton, where I undid the posting of a complete article from The Independent on the talk page for copyright reasons. In that case the poster was 37.230.15.203 (talk · contribs). EdJohnston (talk) 23:28, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

• I've blocked both, seems to be advocating something, quite poorly. Or trolling. Regardless, not here to build an encyclopedia. The IP picked up after the named account was warned. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 23:33, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

  Sounds good. Thanks. --Kinu ^t/_c 23:47, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Where and how to request a Civility board

I was reviewing the Administrators' noticeboard and was surprised to become fully conscious of the fact that, under "User conduct," there is no board for Civility! There are Abuse (long-term cases); Article sanctions; Conflict of interest; Contributor copyright; Edit warring & 3RR; Editor restrictions; New pages patrollers; Paid editing; Sockpuppets; Usernames; and Vandalism... but no Civility.

Considering that civility is one of the five "pillars," this seems a remarkable omission. If NPOV is one of the pillars and has a board under "Articles and content," civility ought to have its own board, too. Certainly edit warring is an uncivil behavior, and I can see why it has a board, but considering the difficulty Wikipedia has attracting and keeping good editors, it seems like we would want to regulate civility as conspicuously and as diligently as NPOV and 3RR.

Where and how can I go about making a formal request to make this a unique noticeboard area?

Thanks.

--Lightbreather (talk) 00:48, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

• You are looking for Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance. The community voted to shut it down [1] and deal with civility issues at WP:ANI and WP:DRN. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 00:55, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. As it is late in the day in my neck of the woods, I will read it in more detail tomorrow, but my first comment is, this discussion is nearly two years old. Is there any reason why it couldn't be brought up again? Maybe starting as some kind of poll for users, current and perhaps even retired (if there's no law or policy that says they cannot be contacted), about the quantity and quality of incivility they experience (if any). Thanks again. Lightbreather (talk) 01:12, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

It would take a discussion at the same place, and you are welcome to contact the previous supporters of the program (I was one of them) but honestly, I don't see it happening. Civility isn't really very enforceable for a number of reasons. See WP:BIAS for some of the reasons, ie: what is offensive to one group of people isn't to another, so it is often impossible to define what "civil" is. Another is the observation that some of our best content creators can be, well, testy. That is the controversial part. I've never blocked for simple incivility and likely never would because of this. What often happens is that a discussion on civility often gets very incivil itself and can make the situation even worse. Personally, I try to let incivility and even insults just roll off my back, and recommend others do the same when it is possible. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 01:25, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

I concur to follow up at WP:WikiProject Editor Retention. Although there is no agreement on specific words that are uncivil, there are a few editors known as "good content creators" who are intolerant. In the short run, they benefit Wikipedia. In the long run, they may or may not benefit Wikipedia, because some of them are clearly over the line (no matter in what Anglophone culture). There should be a better mechanism for addressing habitual incivility. By the way,WP:DRN is not and cannot be a way to deal with incivility. Since dispute resolution is meant to address content disputes, the dispute resolution volunteers will close a case if it is being complicated by conduct issues. Dispute resolution works best when the editors are willing to work collaboratively but need assistance. WP:ANI is not an ideal place for discussing incivility, because extended threads there become uncivil (and because some of the most contentious content creators have entourages who support them, and due to the supermajority nature of consensus, it becomes difficult to get consensus to sanction them). I agree that a better process is needed for addressing incivility. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:37, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Dennis Brown, I am still studying the Village pump link you gave. I have only just finished going through the first of multiple threads under the section header. After my first pass, I count 98 votes. And some of the comments there, and even here, surprise me. Specifically, that civility isn't enforceable or that there is no agreement on what civility is. But certainly there is agreement about conduct that is uncivil. There are actual policies re: Personal attacks and Harassment. Disruptive editing, on the other hand, is described in a behavioral guideline, and tendentious editing is described in an essay.

I would wager that a lot of people who leave Wikipedia, especially women who leave, do so because they feel civility is a crumbled pillar. You practically have to call someone a expletive or say something about their mother... No, honestly, I've seen people use that kind of language here with no repercussion. Not to say that there aren't good men on WP - there are. Or that there aren't bad women - there are. But when you have a self-policing group that is at least 85% men, you get what Wikipedia is today.

First step, IMO (and I probably will start an honest-to-god discussion somewhere soon, after I've done some more thinking and talking here), is not to call the civility board the "Wikiquette" board. Right off the bat, we alienate the whole crowd of people who read that and think they have to stick their pinkies in the air when they drink. I saw a lot of talk about a 3O board for conduct, and that might work. Frankly, I think it ought to be simply the Civility board, and make it clear at the top that it addresses civility policies only. (Make people take disruptive and tendentious editing, and other guideline or essay based conduct) to ANI or ArbCom, because those are harder to prove.) And if there is concern that there are already too many conduct boards, why not merge some of those? Why have separate COI and paid advocacy boards? Or separate sockpuppet, username and vandalism boards?

I honestly think that if Wikipedia cracked down on harassment and personal attacks, there would be, at first, a rash of short bans/blocks, then a huge improvement in conduct and in content, too. It is ridiculous to condone incivility in some editors because they're somehow too good to lose otherwise. This is supposed to be a "wiki" (collaborative) "paedia" (body of knowledge). Kill the wiki - and incivility does just that - and the rest will lose its vigor. Lightbreather (talk) 19:51, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Speaking as an admin with over two years with the bit, I'm one of those that thinks that civility isn't enforceable on a multi-national website. We can deal with personal attacks, and deal with long term gross incivility where there is a clear pattern, but anything else is unenforceable. I didn't think so two years ago, but I do now. From my experience, talking with editors and trying to find common ground, plus tolerating a a good deal of heat and occasional swearing is the only way to deal with it. If you start blocking people for singular incidents of incivility, you would lose half the wiki in a week. The fact is, when people work together, they will bump heads, and sometimes good things come from that, sometimes just rudeness comes from it. This is true in the real world as much as it is here. Grown ups will sometimes tell each other to "fuck off". I'm willing to talk to folks and get them to try to get along, but I'm not willing to block over it. I understand it can be frustrating, but it is part of the process. Yes, some leave due to the occasional crassness, but at least as many would if you tried to enforce civility. The really, big, big problem is that it is impossible to enforce civility without introducing my own version of civility, which may differ from yours, or other admin, so it would be enforced unevenly, which is grossly unfair, and would cause all kinds of drama at the boards because Editor 1 said "piss off" and got blocked, and Editor 2 said the same thing and wasn't, because two different admin reviewed it. You can't codify what is and isn't civil when you live in a global neighborhood, at least not when we are talking about small doses of it. My opinion is that it would be a net loss for editor retention if we enforced it. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 20:02, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Speaking as one who was once blocked for using the word sycophantic, it's my impression that the civility policy, such as it is, was once policed rather aggressively by a number of admins. Didn't really make any difference though, and it wouldn't really make any difference if the idea was resurrected. Eric Corbett 20:18, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, it is an awfully smarmy word ;-) but if all you were blocked for was using it, then I'd say civility was policed rather aggressively then. Lightbreather (talk) 23:34, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

The fundamental error was in adding civility as one of the pillars, as it's impossible to define and therefore to enforce. To give you just one example, it's my opinion that one of the most incivil people on WP is Jimbo Wales, and very few would have the balls to block him. Added to which incivility as it tends to be invoked here on WP more often than not simply means saying something I don't agree with, or upsets me. Besides, the easiest way to avoid being called a cunt is not to act like one. Eric Corbett 20:14, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

"Added to which incivility as it tends to be invoked here on WP more often than not simply means saying something I don't agree with, or upsets me." - Brilliantly put!!! --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) 17:47, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Amazingly, Eric Corbett, I missed the last, "Besides" sentence of your comment yesterday. Probably because there were so many comments, and I was reading pretty fast, and you made your point (or seemed to) up front. But, following up today, and trying to figure out why another editor found your comment "brilliant" - there are errors in your argument. First, although it might be impossible to come up with a definition of what civility means that we could all agreed on, it's absolutely possible to define specific behaviors that are unacceptable. For instance, most would agree that calling someone the "N" word or, as you've done here, the "C" word, is unacceptable. Further, your own use of the "C" word here indicates that you believe someone can act in such a way that merits being called that word. And your use of that word also indicates you had, at least, a certain gender in mind, if not a certain person, when you said it. Either way, it is grossly offensive.

Will you please remove that "Besides" sentence, Eric? If you do, then I will remove this whole reply. If you don't, it's an example of a reason why PAIN, or something like it, should be restored. Lightbreather (talk) 04:01, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

• You can also find lots about the varies attempts to make civility actionable in the archives of Wikipedia talk:Civility. Monty₈₄₅ 20:18, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Before there was WQA, there was the dedicated Wikipedia:Personal attack intervention noticeboard (shortcut: the aptly chosen WP:PAIN). This was shut down for some of the same reasons as WQA at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Personal attack intervention noticeboard. The collective experience, I suppose, is that civility and the avoidance of personal attacks is important, but that it is better to depend on a collective ethos of treating one another well, as partners on a collaborative project, rather than to rely on primarily on a sanctions model in an area well-known to result in disagreements over line-drawing. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:34, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I strongly disagree with Eric that it was a mistake to make civility one of our pillars. I have no opinion as to whether or not Jimbo is one of the most incivil people on the encyclopedia, but without civility, this place would be destroyed in a few days or weeks once the fighting started in earnest and unchecked.

But...I do agree that the issue really isn't civility per se, because Eric is right that many times incivility tends to be about saying something someone doesn't agree with and then...it becomes a long standing personal conflict that bounces around from noticeboard to noticeboard because we are ill equipped to deal with personal conflict and brush it under the carpet or try to deal with it as an intervention issue and not just like EVERY other issue on other boards where the community discusses the issue and makes a non binding determination with a consensus. Yes, I agree with lightbreather that we need something so, sometime back I created Wikipedia:WikiProject Conflict Resolution to begin creating a board like what Lightbreather is asking about...while trying very hard not to be Wikiquette assistance. You see, Wikipedia has no etiquette, which is simply "a code of behavior that delineates expectations...". We also don't deal well with conflict and DR/N is absolutely not designed to deal with it, almost at all. My hope is still that someday we can have a WP:CRN, similar to WP:DRN that deals with content disputes but much simpler and styled like the other noticeboards to try and deal with personal conflict.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:45, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Dang, Newyorkbrad, PAIN - which was, wow, deleted over five years ago - is even closer to what I'm thinking about than the "Wikiquette assistance" board that was shut down two years ago. But for civility issues that have policies, it seems like something that ought to be resurrected. I don't know about other conduct issues, but if an editor personally attacks or harasses another, it is easy to prove. Such conduct should get one warning, then a short (72 hours?) ban or block, then, if repeated, a longer ban/block, and so on. I would wager, from my own experience and observation, that persistent, unsubstantiated personal attacks and harassment have driven away a lot of decent editors. Lightbreather (talk) 23:48, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Oh...I see, you are more concerned with personal attacks than conflict. Yeah....we have AN/I for that and it works well.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:04, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong. A CRN sounds great, too, but a lot of the comments I read in the old discussion, and some here, seem to say that civility is just too subjective to address effectively. Broadly, that may be true, but some things - like PA and harassment - are pretty easy to prove with evidence, or the lack of it. Lightbreather (talk) 00:17, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

CRN would not be about civility. It would be about personal conflict. What you seem to be suggesting is a board for strictly personal attacks and those are blockable offenses best dealt with by those with the tools on the board where such requests and reports are made. You state that "PA and harassment - are pretty easy to prove with evidence", really? Then what is the issue? I am not trying to be insulting, but I have spent the last few years of my Wikipedia "career" looking over these issues, volunteering at DRN, helping out at AN and ANI, as part of my effort to be a part of the solution, but have been harassed and attacked just for that. Personal attacks are the things that can be shown, but they don't always get resolved or sanctioned. The community needs to take control of the issue in the same manner as all other issues....with consensus.--Mark Miller (talk) 09:22, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

• On WQA our goal was not to "enforce" civility - it was to be a neutral 3rd (and 4th and 5th) party to help to break down the barriers to communication, and to advise people that civil communication was taken seriously. It was intended to stop possibly escalating incivility before it led to personal attacks. If the incident was already a heinous personal attack, or needlessly escalated into personal attacks, then we would report it to ANI for immediate action the panda ₯’ 20:50, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

That seems like a great service to the community! Too bad it was closed. And too soon, it seems. From the discussion at the time, it seems like the board's function was to be diverted to a 3O board for conduct (as opposed to content), or to a WP:SANITY check process. For whatever reason, such oversight seems to have fallen through the cracks. Lightbreather (talk) 00:05, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

An (IMO) peculiar aspect of the decision is that WQA was abolished on the basis that there was no need for it, but some of the key editors who promoted that subsequently tried to get 3O to take on the role (even though there was, supposedly, no need for it). But, in the end, 3O didn't want that role (understandably, because, realistically, it would have just meant constantly sign-posting people to ANI). A new hybrid WQA/3O board was suggested, but I don't think it was ever proposed. Formerip (talk) 00:44, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

I think that part of the reason is that ANI has been able to cope with the extra load, I really haven't noticed that much of an increase. If ANI starts buckling under the weight, it would probably create more interest in a separate board. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 00:49, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Realistically, all that fell on ANI, which has done "ok" in dealing with it, although not exceptional. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 00:13, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

It is what it is (god I hate that phrase...but here I am using it) but it does a better job than just OK...I do agree it is not exceptional, but then neither is Wikipedia in general from the perception of many. I am not sure where this discussion is going now...but I wait with baited breath to see where it leads.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:18, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Since I started the discussion, I'll say that I'm still digesting all of the comments here and in the links given. It's almost overwhelming. Lightbreather (talk) 00:28, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, that's the backroom politics of Wikipedia for ya ... the panda ₯’ 08:59, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

As some have suggested above, it is a procedural and process failure. Civility is enforced ad hoc from social pressure to lecture, to forms of suppression, to block, to on up. So, if there were a will to regularize process you would want some standards and assessment: eg., if a good number uninvolved people say, 'geez, just stop that' you are assessed a point, a number of points leads to a 24 hour; a repeat with a lower number of points leads to 48 etc. You will always have the problem of the 'you are incivil' 'no, you are incivil' but that's no different from the problem of 'you are POV', 'no, you are POV'. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:25, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Which then ends up holding the most active and productive editors to an excruciatingly strict standard. The more good edits you make, and the more active you are, the more chances there are for someone to take offensive at something you have said or done. Its all subjective too, what if 5 people say cut it out, and 4 say whats the big deal? How does that compare to 14 saying cut it out, and 15 saying no big deal, or 2 people just saying cut it out? Hard and fast rule are rarely a good idea on Wikipedia. Monty₈₄₅ 18:32, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Incivility is not the usual domain of the active, nor productive. Excruciatingly strict? Not in my experience of Wikipedians. If you can get a good number of uninvolved to agree on something like "cut it out", you know there are tacts that are not working for colleagues. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:57, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

• Monty is exactly right here. The most productive will rub the most people wrong, and using simple metrics to determine when to block just encourages cliques of anti-civility vigilantes to form. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 22:48, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

If Wikipedia wants more editors

The response, so far, I think is pretty telling: including myself, 11. Though I don't advertise it, I am a woman; nine of the others are or appear to be men; the other, DangerousPanda, I'm not sure about. I think that if civility were more strongly enforced on WP, there would be more women editing, and that would improve the project. The status quo, IMO, does not. Lightbreather (talk) 21:22, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Using {{they|DangerousPanda}} shows: he. Let's not try to equate civility to attracting female editors to the project - there's zero relationship between those, and such a statement is sexist in itself - if I suggested that women couldn't be abrasive, I'd be neutered the panda ₯’ 21:31, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

What has being a woman got to do with incivility? This is a serious question, and, to me, highlights another massive cultural difference across the globe. In my culture, I suspect women swear as much as men, and very few people are terribly offended. Are there places where men swear and women are always offended by it? (Sourced answers only please.) Even if they exist, why impose the standards of those places on the whole of Wikipedia? This should not be about women. HiLo48 (talk) 21:41, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

OK, DangerousPanda, thanks. That "they" tool is one that I was unaware of. As for zero relationship between civility and attracting female editors, I disagree. And I never said that women couldn't be abrasive. Lightbreather (talk) 21:55, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

You're disagreeing with the wrong thing. Obviously YOU are offended by some things that some men write (and would be offended by some things some women write too), but who cares? The issue is whether your perspective is a global one, and one that is to do with men vs women (note that I asked for sources), and/or one that Wikipedia should care about? HiLo48 (talk) 22:16, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

If we want more editors, and editors who aren't scared of editing in certain areas, get rid of the blatant POV pushers, including Admins, who don't ever swear, and so get away with imposing their bigotry here. HiLo48 (talk) 21:44, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

There is something to be said about that. I think more people are offended by POV than someone saying "ass". Same with sockpuppets, which are often created to continue POV edit warring or make it look like there is more support than there really is; an extension of what HiLo is saying. Even with all my groovy admin tools, there are plenty of areas I just don't want to edit in because of all the POV headaches, and if I'm editing, I have to leave my tools outside the door. I'm more assertive as an editor than I am as an admin, and my tolerance for POV warriors when I'm in "editor mode" isn't very high. My civility isn't the same either. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 22:57, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

• Good thing I'm POV-free and swear regularly the panda ₯’ 23:00, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

• Interesting conversation. I edit in Yugoslav topics, and robust discussion is entirely warranted, and frankly, the level of frustration caused by daily interaction with POV-warriors would try the patience of a saint. On top of POV-warriors there are plenty of editors that are hard of hearing or lack competency, just for starters. I for one prefer to use robust language initially, and ANI eventually. I have yet to be censured for the harsh language, but have withdrawn once or twice when I overstepped the very blurry line in the view of an admin. Civility is mostly subjective, and I don't see the need for a civility board or anything like it. The cultural differences are important, I believe telling someone to fuck off or that they are being an arsehole is entirely justified if they are displaying endless tendentiousness, failure to hear, or are hounding me on my talk page, but I do not use c*** in any context. I'm an Aussie. Some others might be less or more willing to use those words. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 00:44, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

A trout for all the sexist pigs who run this site

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

... and for the people who lack the courage to stand up to bullies. This trout for all you folks who keep insisting that abusive language about reproductive organs is just fine when we are having a hard time getting civilized, educated women to participate. Revert me, see if I care. I'm outta here for a while! Djembayz (talk) 00:30, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

• Not every person that is offended by crass language is a woman. Not every person who makes a fart joke is a man. We would all love a more civil Wikipedia, but blocking people for using bad words will only mean that the more passive aggressive types who hide their bullying and insults in saccharine laced words will be running the place. Some of the nicest people cuss sometimes. Personally, if I'm going to be insulted, I prefer the honesty of someone who just says it bluntly, not someone who hides it in clever language designed to intimidate and diminish me. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 00:40, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

I tried standing up to the NRA bullies, and got blocked by them. I tried standing up to a POV pushing, Putin hating, bullying Admin, who took me to ANI for it. He lost, but now I get told "That HiLo is evil, look how many times he's been taken to ANI". The bullies, particularly the non-swearing ones, often win here. There are many forms of incivility, and swearing is a minor part of it. A lot of POV nonsense gets added to the encyclopaedia by non-swearers. You need to be more concerned about that. HiLo48 (talk) 00:39, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

RFC Closing Questions

First, if an RFC is closed, should it be deleted from the list of RFCs awaiting closure? I assume that is yes.

Second, if it is difficult to determine consensus, possibly because the RFC had few responses and did not have a proper Survey section, so that it is hard to tell what the !votes are, should this be noted in the closure, with a comment to the effect that a better-formed RFC can be opened if there is a desire to get better consensus? Robert McClenon (talk) 23:12, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

• When closing, the closer should pull the template, and the bot will automatically delist in time. If the RFC hasn't had much participation, it should be relisted. instead of closed, like we do AFDs. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 23:43, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

What template? Where are the instructions about the template? My question is whether the entry in WP:AN should be deleted. I don't think that is done by a bot. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:41, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

I believe Dennis thought you were referring to the article talk page, so he is referring to the RfC template. Yes, the entry at AN is deleted and archived manually; the current archive is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure/Archive 13. For discussions I've closed, I place a {{done}} template and let someone else do the archiving, in case anyone wants to check my conclusions.

If it is difficult to determine consensus, I would say that this very much requires a case-by-case approach - though take this with a grain of salt, since I've only been doing closures for a few months now. I haven't seen any RfCs get relisted yet, but if you think the formulation of the RfC is an issue (which sounds like it might be the case in your example), I would let the editors start a new RfC with better wording or instructions, and might make recommendations on how to do that. I can usually determine editors' opinions even without a proper Survey section, but if I couldn't I would probably leave the close for someone more familiar with the topic. Sunrise (talk) 04:07, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

The difference between AFD and RFC is of course that AFD asks one question: "Should article (Name) be deleted, with known alternatives such as Merge and Redirect. An RFC asks whatever question is asked by its author and is formatted by the author. If the RFC doesn't have Survey and Threaded Discussion questions, and the question isn't clear, then it may not be possible to determine consensus. There are other reasons why there may not be consensus. If the issue is whether to include criticisms of a politician, then the Oppose !votes are clear, but if different editors support entering different criticisms, there is no clear consensus. I had to close that one with a recommendation to post a new RFC for each different criticism. Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:10, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Actually, AFD also asks "holy frick, can we fix this in 7 days so that it doesn't get deleted?" the panda ₯’ 22:00, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Exactly, AFDs are simple because they are mostly binary, delete or keep, with a few other options, and a vaguely understood criteria. I'm guessing a good minority of RFCs are worded so poorly, there is no hope of consensus. Either there is POV in the question being asked, they are asking for something that is kind of against policy, and even a few are trying to use RFC for what should be done at WP:DRN. Then again, the very open nature of an RFC means you can close one with a better solution than anyone thought of when it started, as people throw in new ideas and consensus moves around those new ideas. RFCs are a mixed bag. Also, my understanding is that once you close an RFC, you remove the small template inside the RFC and the bots take care of delisting at WP:AN and such. I mainly participate in RFCs, not close them. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 22:41, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Should WT:ANRFC redirect here?

WT:ANI redirects here. Shouldn't WT:ANRFC as well? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:24, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't think so. Everything on that talk page for the entire history of it has been about the RFC side of AN/RFC, not the general AN side. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 23:29, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

• No the panda ₯’ 23:41, 25 July 2014 (UTC)