Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Dispute Resolution
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of WikiProject Dispute Resolution, a collaborative effort to improve dispute resolution practices on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 
          A Wikipedia ad has been created for this project page. Click [show] to view it.

RfC history[edit]

Is there a way to find RfC's a particular user initiated including closed ones? -- GreenC 13:40, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

No, because once the {{rfc}} template has gone (whether removed by Legobot or an ordinary user), there is nothing to identify the erstwhile RfC as being a (former) RfC. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:26, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
Ok found what I was looking for by doing a Google search: "user name" "RfC" site:en.wikipedia.org' .. where "user name" is the screen display name (not User:name). Worked well enough, probably not totally accurate since it depends on Google caching the page and the section header to start with "RfC: Question..". Leaving method here in case anyone wants it. -- GreenC 22:57, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
That assumes that the initiator of the RfC has put the string "RfC:" into the section header, which is not mandatory, it's also not a widespread convention. If you look at some of the RfCs linked from WP:RFC/A you will find plenty that don't. For example, the very first one listed, Talk:Gary Cooper#rfc 953D19E, has a section heading "Anderson Lawler". Then there are the ones where a section was created some time before the {{rfc}} was added, so the first signature in the thread is not necessarily that of the RfC initiator. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:58, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
  • What you may have to do is go through the talk page history and look at the difs around the relevant dates that the RFC took place. It is time consuming... But you will find a record of every edit... Including when a formal RFC was initiated. Blueboar (talk) 14:10, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

question[edit]

is the closer's decision binding? --HamedH94 (talk) 09:16, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Briefly, yes, unless the decision is modified by the closer or successfully appealed (see WP:CLOSECHALLENGE for details). Other factors may also apply, e.g. if the decision is clearly out of date, if another RfC comes to a different conclusion (although starting a duplicate of a recently closed RfC is a bad idea), if sockpuppetry is discovered after the fact, etc. Do you have a particular closure that you'd like to ask about? Sunrise (talk) 10:14, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
no, we still got about 20 days until closure. i just wanna know the guidelines. another q: can an rfc closure in one article be used as a reference for other similar articles? --HamedH94 (talk) 11:11, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Generally, no. Each article stands on its own. For a principle to apply across a group of articles or subjects, you generally need to make it a policy or guideline. It that regard, it needs to be remembered that standards set for a subject-matter group of articles at a Wikiproject such as WikiProject Bridges or WikiProject Radio are merely advisory and are not binding unless they have clearly been made to be a policy or guideline, see CONLIMITED. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:09, 5 August 2016 (UTC) PS: Another way to make a principle applicable across a range of articles is to post at each of the talk pages that a RFC affecting all of them is occurring at one of them and link to that RFC. Moreover, if a group of articles have about the same constituency of editors then a decision at one of them may in effect be binding on all of them on the principle that to refile the RFC at each of them would simply be disruptive since the same editors will simply reach the same result every time. — TransporterMan (TALK) 17:22, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
It's misleading to call what the closer provides a decision, because an RfC is about comments, not arbitration. What the closer does is interpret the comments received. Ideally, that includes describing a consensus of involved parties, which should put a dispute to rest. But that's not the same thing as rendering a ruling on a dispute, which is what "decision" sounds like. But if the question is, "is a closer's interpretation binding", I agree with the answer above. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 17:17, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
Good point, thanks Bryan. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:51, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
More generally: Nothing on the English Wikipedia is binding unless it comes with an explicit statement that it is mandatory (e.g., several legal policies), enforcement via software (e.g., the spam blacklist), or a statement from ArbCom that the decision will stand for a certain period of time (usually six months, but sometimes it's been as much as three years).
Specifically with respect to RFCs: Anybody can write a closing statement for an RFC – even a kid who doesn't even have an account. The closer may misunderstand the question or may fail to address important issues. The closer may be biased or have no understanding of our policies. The closer may think his job is to cast a deciding vote, rather than to summarize what other people said. All of these create problems.
So while, overall, as a purely general idea, we want and need editors to respect the closers' summaries, in practice, when the closers make mistakes, we want the mistakes corrected. (Also: Do you really need a closing statement? Especially if you started the RFC and the answer is "everyone disagrees with me", then your best approach is to show the other editors that you know WP:How to lose with grace, and close it yourself with a note that says you'll go along with them.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 09:29, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Consensus met?[edit]

Has a consensus at this RfC (The Dark Side of the Moon) and this one (Axis: Bold as Love) been met? Can either be closed with a determination by an uninvolved editor? I've listed the discussion twice, and it's just let to expire without closure. Dan56 (talk) 17:37, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

RFC's generally remain open for 30 days, and both of those are far short of that and the !votes which have come in so far are not close to a SNOW closure. Late opinions frequently come in. When it gets close to 30 days if there is not an obvious result that no one could reasonably argue about, list it in the appropriate section at AN, not here, to request a closure. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:52, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
My bad. I now see that they ran out and expired and you relisted them. I'd suggest reverting your relistings and request closings at AN. If you don't revert your closings, then another 30 days will run. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:58, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
User:Dan56, the directions at WP:RFC#Ending RfCs tell you how to close RFCs. Do you really need some uninvolved editor to write a closing statement? The important thing is that people have agreed on how to edit the article, not that they get a bunch of templates added to the discussion. If you all have agreement, then you should stop waiting for some bureaucratic process and get back to editing. The main value of the bureaucratic process is when the alternative to "waiting" is "risking an edit war". WhatamIdoing (talk) 08:37, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Harassed from starting an RFC[edit]

Hello. Could someone please let us know if it is normal for RFCs to be blocked at Talk:Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016 when Talk:Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016 has some? The threat reads, "proposing editors are free to file an RfC but have been cautioned that doing so might be considered tendentious." Obviously I am not interested in starting an RFC if we accept the double standards.Zigzig20s (talk) 03:05, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

@Wikidemon: Would you care to respond? This is, of course, in regard to your close at Talk:Hillary_Clinton_presidential_campaign,_2016#Endorsement_by_Seddique_Mateen. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 03:17, 27 August 2016 (UTC) (RFC talk page stalker)
Of course it's not normal to block RFCs on one article when they aren't blocked on a similar article. In fact, it's not normal to block an RFC at all, and I'm not even sure what it means to block an RFC. I looked at the Clinton campaign talk page - mainly the Seddique Mateen section - and didn't see any blocking. All I saw was one editor arguing that an RFC would not be appropriate, while clearly acknowledging that someone who wants to open an RFC can do so (from the quote above, "proposing editors are free to file an RfC ..."). I hope you don't think that editor has some kind of authority to decide if an RFC can be opened.
While I think User:Wikidemon has a good point about sparing the community an RFC that's simply not going to generate a useful result, if all you're getting from his posts on the subject is that you're being harassed, intimidated, or oppressed, then you should by all means open the RFC, because none of those things can be allowed to control an editor's behavior. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 04:10, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
@Zigzig20s: "Gay bash[ing]" is a serious accusation. If that is happening, I would sincerely like to see it dealt with. Can you provide a diff? Graham (talk) 06:54, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
No, I am not interested in playing into their drama. I want nothing to do with them. But I think another editor should start the RFC(s). At least the only about Mateen. It's a good one by the way, because we are dealing with facts, not weasel words like Trump's ongoing RFC.Zigzig20s (talk) 07:05, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
We've gone through this before, Zigzig20s – don't make baseless assertions you're unwilling or unable to back up with evidence. If you aren't going to provide diffs and 'gay bashing' is yet another baseless assertion, please strike the comment. Graham (talk) 07:40, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
You can't make an allegation like that and then ask to be left alone when someone asks which comment you're referring to (or any other evidence of your accusation). Either provide a diff or strike the comment. Graham (talk) 16:55, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

This editor, in my quick take a kind hearted and sincere human being, is having some serious issues with editing the encyclopedia. They're promoting some fringe theories for inclusion in the article about Clinton's relationship with the father of the Orlando shooter, and variously flopping, accusing, and feeling hurt about the community's efforts to respond. The problem with starting farfetched and pointless RfCs about non-core issues, two months before the US Presidential election, is twofold. First, it is only two months before the election and an RfC takes a month to close except in SNOW cases. Thus, these RfCs will not be resolved at a rate that is useful for generating encyclopedic content. Second, there's been a recent upsurge in election-relate RfCs, on all political fronts, by individual editors who do not immediately gain consensus for their fringe-y or off-center proposal. This has happened in may election-related articles irrespective of political affiliation, and seems to undermine community sanctions. It seems that some editors have found a new way to game the system. An RfC is supposed to be a near-last step in content dispute resolution, not the first thing to do by an editor who proposes something that does not gain consensus. - Wikidemon (talk) 04:59, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

User:Wikidemon: You are being extremely condescending. Please stop. I have been editing Wikipedia for a decade and I do not need to be harassed by you like that. It's not fringe at all to include the fact that the Orlando shooter's father, who said he thought homosexuality would be "punished by God" after his son had committed the second deadliest terrorist attack on US soil by killing members of the LGBTQ community, was invited to Clinton's campaign rally and said she would be good for national security. This content addition was rejected by some editors on the talkpage, so User:The Four Deuces, User:Broter and I wanted to start an RFC. Then Wikidemon closed the discussion and threatened us if we started an RFC. As I said, I feel gay bashed, bullied and bruised by this behavior, and I will take a break from editing about politics. This has definitely had a chilling effect on my editing. But I would like another editor to start the RFC for us because WP:UNCENSORED.Zigzig20s (talk) 05:16, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
I am trying to be friendly and kind in face of some out of bounds editing efforts. I read your participation here as most likely sincere, despite many other accounts that have clearly not been legitimate. Your comments about the LGBTQ issues here reflect reasonable and legitimate concerns that someone might have observing world events, but not aligned with the encyclopedia's mission. If there were some sinister sub-plot involving Clinton inviting the father or the Orlando shooter to her rally because she had a hidden agenda against gay rights, and the secret service detail being in on a plot to admit anti-gay Muslim hate speech advocates, that sort of thing would have to be developed first by sourced content in the article itself, and if due weight were established, in the lede. It wouldn't and it won't, because this is a fringe anti-Clinton talking point. - Wikidemon (talk) 05:49, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
That is not what the RFC would be about. Nobody knows why he was invited to the rally. We are simply trying to relay the following facts: The Orlando shooter's father, who said he thought homosexuality would be "punished by God" after his son had committed the second deadliest terrorist attack on US soil by killing members of the LGBTQ community, was invited to Clinton's campaign rally and said she would be good for national security.. Those are facts. Yes, Wikipedia should not censor LGBTQ-related topics. This is not Homophopedia. Could someone else please start the RFC? I have had enough of being harassed.Zigzig20s (talk) 05:58, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  • If an RFC were to be held, I would oppose the addition. Whenever there is a debate about whether to add some factoid (or not) to an article, I always examine the factoid's historical significance within the context of the article's topic... I ask whether the material is likely to still be in the article five years from now. In the context of the article about the Clinton campaign, the historical significance of this factoid is all but non-existant. The fact that a bigoted asshole attended a Clinton rally (and expressed support for Mrs. Clinton) will not be seen by historians as being of any lasting significance. His attendance and opinion has had no impact on the campaign. No voters changed how they view the candidate due to this factoid. Those who support Mrs. Clinton still support her. Those who oppose her still oppose her. Fence sitters are still sitting on the fence. It is unlikely that historians will consider this factoid to be of any lasting significance. So... if added to the article, I think it highly likely that it will be removed as a triviality in some future rewrite. And thus, I reach the conclusion that it should not be added now. Blueboar (talk) 13:47, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  • If the RfC were to be held, I also would oppose the addition, for the reasons given, and so would most editors. If it should be added, it should certainly wait until after the election and probably a couple years after that, and if it still has legs then we can talk about it (we have to take the long view here). Since the RfC is not going to succeed anyway, why not just let it go and move on to something constructive. Herostratus (talk) 22:06, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
Well, this is veering way off-topic for this section and this page. Per the topic, I really can't see how Zigzig20s can feel harassed or believe someone is blocking an RfC, but I believe him when he says he wouldn't be comfortable opening an RfC on the matter at hand. And from reading the discussion, I think the topic is appropriate for an RfC - it's a basic notability question, and those always have wide-ranging perspectives, and we've seen several people on both sides so far. This is just what RfCs are good for. Therefore, I have opened an RfC. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 00:27, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

RfC bot not working correctly?[edit]

Can someone tell me why the RfC bot isn't picking up this RfC? I opened it yesterday and waited almost a full day. I now removed and reinserted the text, but still no luck. Thanks. Kingsindian   05:11, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

@Kingsindian: There isn't a "RfC bot", there is Legobot (talk · contribs). It's not picking up that RfC because the sort order of Category:Wikipedia requests for comment is screwy (it goes D, 0-9, G, A, B, C, E, F, H ...), which in turn is because of this update. --Redrose64 (talk) 08:12, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
@Redrose64: Thanks. I can't really understand what exactly is going on there. Will this issue be automatically fixed when the script is done, or do I have to do something? Kingsindian   11:19, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
Since I wrote the above, more letters have changed their positions, and the full sequence is presently C, D, 0–9, G, A, B, E, F, H, R, I, J, S, L, M, N, O, P, T, U, V, W. Clearly it's changing by the hour, and once it resolves itself as 0-9, A, B, C ... U, V, W - if not sooner - I firmly expect Legobot to detect that RfC. It will then carry out the appropriate actions, i.e. adding an |rfcid= and listing it on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/History and geography and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Politics, government, and law; and the next time that 04:00 (UTC) is reached, it will be listed on some user pages as well. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:39, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
Now A, C, D, E, 0–9, F, G, L, B, H, R, I, J, S, M, N, O, P, T, U, V, W. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:23, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

RfC bot not listing page?[edit]

It's been over 24 hours since the RfC at Talk:List of bus routes in London was started? Is there a problem with the bot, or the fact I listed it under a level 3 header? I can see from above that something was up; has it been fixed? jcc (tea and biscuits) 19:25, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

@Jcc: See above. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:19, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
It has been four days since the Rfc at Template talk:Democratic Party (United States)/meta/color started. Is this going to be a permanent difficuly, or is it likely to be fixed soon? In the meantime, is there anything that I can do?--Neveselbert 05:36, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Legoktm, any news on the question I left you at User talk:NeilN#RFC Bio? --Redrose64 (talk) 09:43, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── The bot seems to be working now, thank-you.--Neveselbert 00:59, 10 September 2016 (UTC)