Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Archive 15

It is important to note that there is no exception in the

talk page guidelines for RFCs to the rule that you shouldn't edit other people's entries on article talk pages. And that's a guideline whereas this isn't even that. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK

) 14:58, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

WP:TPO#unsigned does permit the addition of a signature. I sometimes do this to other people's RfCs, because without one, you might get an RfC entry like this. I also fix invalid parameters in the {{rfc}} template, when I notice something being added to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Unsorted. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk

) 20:16, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Absolutely. I was just pointing out that some of what Godsy is concerned about is currently proper under existing policies and guidelines (though I certainly disagree with the manner in which that was expressed in some of his examples). Whether it should be proper is — perhaps — a different issue for discussion, but I was also indirectly pointing out that a change here at RFC might not be enough unless a corresponding change is made at TPG. We can certainly set down an elaborate set of standards by which RFC's are to be conducted, but my first question would be whether it's really needed. Is this a big problem? Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:32, 9 March 2017 (UTC) PS: And let me note that this is also partially dealt with under the fifth bullet point here at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment#Suggestions_for_responding and at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment#Ending_RfCs #1. — TransporterMan (TALK) 21:36, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

I added some clarifications, marked by brackets, to my opening comment. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 03:57, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

• @
  trainwreck
  . The closer to the beginning of the RfC, the better.

It could use some polishing. I think it would go well below what is currently bullet five of the Suggestions for responding section. I also think bullet five could be extended to say "or add your own neutral statement and format directly below the originators" in some form to cover question (non-option) RfCs. I think these changes would make it clearer to users that just because one starts an RfC, doesn't mean they

own it. The quotes I provided in my opening comment are from longstanding experienced editors; I wouldn't be so concerned as to propose something like this if the quotes were from new inexperienced users. What do you think? If you guys think it's a good idea, I'll formally propose it. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT

) 08:36, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm not in favor of suggesting this kind of editing of the request, with its implication that everyone has the same right as the originator to choose what is being requested.

First, I'd like to reinforce TransporterMan's observation about talk page guidelines controlling this. An RfC is just a talk page post with extra advertising, and a label that clarifies what kind of discussion the poster is trying to start. If the "RfC" label weren't used, would you feel justified in modifying someone's talk page post to ask a different question?

Second, I believe modifying the request, including adding options, can severely hamper an RfC's ability to reach a useful conclusion. As it is, most RfCs I read have many comments that ignore the stated request and go off on all sorts of tangents, including choosing options that aren't in the list. And that's bad. But at least the originator has a chance of getting the consensus he wants as long as his RfC description stands.

Editing the RfC description is fine by me as a suggestion to the originator, if you think there's a good chance he'll consider it an improvement, but the originator should own the substance of the request. If you think there's a better question to be asked and the RfC originator still likes his, you can post your own RfC and encourage people to ignore the first one. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 18:56, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

@Giraffedata: "If the "RfC" label weren't used, would you feel justified in modifying someone's talk page post to ask a different question?" – No I wouldn't; the RfC opening should comply with WP:Requests for comment#Statement should be neutral and brief, whereas other posts aren't held to that standard. That aside, I largely disagree with your latter two paragraphs, but I appreciate the reply. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 20:28, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

The page used to say that the default duration of an RfC is 30 days because a bot is programmed to close it after that time. User:Mike Peel changed it to say the default duration is 30 days and a bot is programmed to close it after that time, but removing the conjunction "because" connecting the two. The edit summary says the bot programming is not a valid reason that RfCs last that long.

I reverted that change; I think there's just some kind of confusion over the interpretation of these words. "Default" means what happens if no one does anything to make it different. If no one does anything to close an Rfc earlier or extend it later, the bot will automatically close it at 30 days, so I believe the bot is what makes the default 30 days.

But I can see one might look to a deeper cause, like why the bot is programmed that way or why people sometimes choose to let it have its way.

I think it's important for the page to show the bot programming is what makes the default 30 days. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 02:57, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Bot does not close it - it removes the RfC listing. Alanscottwalker (talk) 03:04, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

They're both OK. Mike Peel's version is slightly better IMO. It has two short statements of fact: "The default duration of an RfC is 30 days. The RFC bot automatically delists RfCs after this time" which is fine. "The default duration of an RfC is 30 days because the RFC bot automatically delists RfCs after this time" is just slightly confusing because "because" has different meanings, and it seems like you're getting into questions of cause and effect... If you're going to have "because" then maybe "The default duration of an RfC is 30 days because we have found this to be the optimal length" is more what the reader would expect. It's not like there's a random bot that delists RfC after 30 days and we can't turn it off, and therefore RfC last 30 days, and could interpret the passage that way. Most people can probably figure it out OK either way, though. Herostratus (talk) 07:38, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

I think that

talk · contribs) did. RFC bot was operated by Harej (talk · contribs

), who is still around.

About a year ago I figured out what Legobot did with {{rfc}}s. Omitting actions not directly relevant here, it looks for the five-character sequence "{{rfc" and assumes that this sequence introduces an open RFC. It does that even if this is not the {{rfc}} template and even if inside HTML comment markers <!--...--> or is enclosed in <nowiki>...</nowiki> tags. From that point, it looks for a valid timestamp, and checks that to see if it is more than thirty days ago. If it is, it removes everything from that {{rfc to the next occurrence of the two characters "}}" inclusive.

Legobot also maintains a database of open RfCs, keyed by the value of the |rfcid= parameter. If that value is not found in any open RfC (usually because it's just removed the {{

WP:RFC/BIO. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk

) 09:09, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Archiving bots don't know about RfCs, for the most part they're instructed to archive threads where a certain time has elapsed since the last datestamped post, and if this certain time happens to be less than thirty days (as with

WP:VPR, which is archived after seven days of inactivity), an RfC may well be archived before its due time (example

).

Legobot (talk · contribs) doesn't work in collaboration with the archiving bots either, it assumes that any RfC that gets archived is to be terminated early, so it simply removes the {{rfc}} (example) with the result that the RfC gets delisted early (example).

If extending an RfC, you don't need to alter a timestamp, you can insert one that is more recent. The essential thing to remember is that

the RfC statement. So if a relisting comment is added at the bottom of the thread (as is done with XfDs), its timestamp is simply ignored; the timestamp is also ignored if a relisting comment is added prior to the {{rfc}}; and since Legobot also assumes that everything between the {{rfc}} and the next timestamp constitutes the whole of the RfC statement, a relisting comment shouldn't be inserted between the {{rfc}} and the RfC statement either. This was understood perfectly by Winged Blades of Godric (talk · contribs) when making this edit which had this effect. Since Legobot looks no further down the thread than the first timestamp after the {{rfc

}}, it simply doesn't care about how recent the last post to the thread was.

Regarding "Unclosed RfC ready for closing ought to be listed automatically" - this would go against

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure

. If the matter under discussion is not contentious and the consensus is obvious to the participants, then formal closure is neither necessary nor advisable. Written closing statements are not required. Editors are expected to be able to evaluate and agree upon the results of most RfCs without outside assistance.

Regarding point 2 - this would require a change to Legobot, and it is so difficult to get even blatantly-detrimental bugs to be fixed that an enhancement has pretty much zero chance. It has proven much more effective to observe how Legobot operates, and work around its quirks, than to wait fruitlessly for a reply from the botop (where bugs are involved, blocking Legobot pending a fix is out of the question, it does so much useful work in other areas that there would be serious outcry; and we can't even be sure that Legobot would restart if unblocked).

Regarding point 3 - getting an archiving bot amended is probably easier than getting Legobot amended. But the problem here is that there are several archiving bots, the main ones are

DNAU

}} that might be present) will be ignored.

The present system - with its inherent problems - has stood for long enough that many people are used to how it operates, even if they are not entirely happy with those methods. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:14, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

OK. Thanks for answering in such detail. You make it kind of sound like we are under the rule of an evil robot, though.

I don't think that OneClickArchiver (usually used on talk pages I think, and in any case subject to human decision) and manual archiving are much of an issue on article talk pages. So I figured that at least one thing that could be done is to propose adding {{

DNAU|40}} to {{rfc}} (30 days + 10 for good measure). This wouldn't stop manual archiving etc. but would stop most archiving. But come to find out the robot doesn't look inside {{rfc

}}.

Of course one can put {{

DNAU|40}} outside the {{rfc

}} (I think). But you have to know to do that.

If Legobot is not very open to improvements, that's not a very satisfactory state of affairs, as a practical matter and also as a matter of principle. I mean, what you're saying is... suppose we had a huge RfC and decided that 30 days was too short and wasn't working, that 45 days would be better. Big RfC, 58-9 in favor of changing to 45 days, let's say. We still couldn't do it. Right? We could ask, is all, but quite possibly futilely. This strikes me as a non-excellent way to run a software operation.

But thanks for your attention. Herostratus (talk) 15:14, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

You do seem to want to elevate the RfC process to something more than it is; or maybe you think it already is and is just implemented incorrectly. In talking about decisions on RfCs, you make it sound like an arbitration; in fact, the only decision a closer makes is what he thinks is the consensus demonstrated in the discussion. It's quite common for the closing statement to be, "There is no consensus here and it doesn't look like there is going to be." I don't believe the creator of an RfC necessarily wants someone to close the discussion, and I don't think RfCs are much different from non-RfC discussions in their closability.

The 30 day automatic termination is just recognition that after that much time, the discussion is probably over and nobody cared enough to close it.

I think an RfC is just a request for comment. It's something you do to invite a broad audience to participate in a discussion. One reason to do that is that any consensus reached that way is bound to carry more weight with editors than one in a local discussion. But it's not an arbitration.

As for the "ready to close" listing, that's really what the RfC listing itself is. Editors are supposed to go to listed discussions and either contribute, or if they find the discussion appears to be complete, close it. I've done that many times. If RfCs are surviving until LegoBot terminates them, it's because there aren't enough editors to close them all, so a separate automatic "it's been X days, someone please close this" listing probably wouldn't help. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 02:10, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Right, I hear what you're saying.

It occurs to me that there are two pretty different uses for RfC -- one is indeed just to talk things over, and maybe throw around some draft ideas, get some more voices on a subject, and so on. You usually don't need separate "Survey" and "Threaded discussion" sections for these (although sometimes you do), and the main purpose of the RfC tag is just to give the discussion some more visibility, I guess. There are a lot of RfC like this and I've made some myself.

But then, lot of RfC are formatted as a "yes-no" proposition (indeed the example on this page is "Should the "History" section contain a photograph of the ship?", with a separate "Survey" section for "voting" as well as "Threaded discussion" section). The example RfC does need to be adjudicated in some way by somebody -- you're going to end up with the photograph of the ship in the article or not (or some other outcome, such as using a different photo or making a gallery instead, but still: an outcome). A lot of times it doesn't need to be formally closed (with the Archive top etc.) since its stone obvious what the answer is, or for other reasons (there's just no interest in the proposition, or it is withdrawn or become moot or whatever), but a lot of times closing with Archive top and some description of the decision is called for. Sometimes that doesn't happen and the effort of the discussion is kind of wasted since no decision is made either way, so that's not ideal.

If there aren't enough editors to close them all, a separate automatic "it's been X days, someone please close this" listing possibly could help if it was in date order and editors could pick from the top. But granted, the

WP:ANI

list does exactly that. But it's not automated, which I'm saying maybe it should be.

Probably really the two kinds of RfC are different enough that they ought to have different procedures -- {{rfc-visibility}} and {{rfc-decision}}, say. Both would be listed in the RfC lists, but beyond that the process and handling and endgame would be different. There are a lot of interesting things a bot could do here if you had two separate types. But this would a lot of heavy lifting, so it's pie-in-the-sky I guess -- if it even is a good idea, which it might not be. Herostratus (talk) 17:09, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, what I'd like to see is instead of an RfC-for-decision, an RfA-for-content (Request for Arbitration). But Wikipedia policy makes it clear that arbitration of article content does not exist. Consensus is all we have. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 16:28, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

A recent example of an RfC not needing formal closure is Talk:North American Aerospace Defense Command#RfC:New article for 1979 false alarm? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:29, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

One step in mitigating this would be to edit the relevant pages about closing RFCs to indicate that any editor, even an involved editor, may close an RFC that is about to have the RFC header automatically removed, purely to memorialize the fact that an RFC occurred. The reason (impending header removal) and result (no uninvolved editor willing to close) should be stated. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:44, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Herostratus, on your comment about the "threaded discussion" example: I asked whether that should stay on the page a while ago, and there was no support for having anything except the simplest example. Perhaps it should be removed again. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:44, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

For my part don't think it should be removed. I think separate Survey and Threaded Discussion sections work fine for many (not all) RfC. After all, whether formally hatted and closed or not, many (not all) RfC want to end up with some decision, some change to or affirmation of some element of an article. Two separate sections aids in discerning what the consensus is, otherwise it can get rather inchoate.

If you want to dispense with that example, run a full RfC here. But you should include Survey and Threaded Discussion sections. Which would kind of undercut your point... Herostratus (talk) 18:55, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

I've got nothing against the format; it's one of several that work well for certain types of discussions. I'm not sure that this form, which encourages vote-counting, should necessarily be prioritized over the other alternatives, and it's probably unnecessary for the majority of RFCs anyway.

(It seems to me that the wikilawyer way is to require the RFC for inclusion, since it was added without any discussion [again: it's been removed a couple of times, but the same editor comes back every couple of years to restore it].) WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:49, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Heh, I don't know. Maybe on RfC on the proposition "Should we have an RfC on...". It's a matter of "stable version" I guess. If the same editor comes back, swat it down

WP:BRD grounds, so a proper discussion and consensus would be required, I think... Herostratus (talk

) 17:11, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

I started a proper discussion when it was re-added again; only one person replied (and also gently opposed inclusion). When we count your view and assume hers, we're evenly divided.

(I don't think that BRD [which is optional anyway] has anything to do with it. I think that she restores it because it's her favorite and having it on this page makes it quick and easy for her to copy the format and to recommend it to others – not an unreasonable view – and then other people remove it because having two detailed wikitext examples seems excessive.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:44, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

In the

If you feel that you cannot describe the issue neutrally, you may either ask someone else to write the question or summary, or simply do your best and leave a note asking others to improve it. It may be helpful to discuss your planned RfC question on the talk page before starting the RfC, to see whether other editors have ideas for making it clearer or more concise.

It's my impression that most editors either don't read that or don't understand it. I think that it might be helpful to include a sentence or two about what to do if you think that someone else has written a non-neutral RFC statement (hint: the answer is not to declare that the RFC is invalid). What do you think? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:52, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

The reaction depends on how badly the RFC was worded. I've speedily closed RFCs which were hopelessly compromised. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:11, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Which does happen on occasion, and that complicates improving the docs. It's long been my experience, on the other hand, that a majority of RFCs are close enough to neutral that they can still produce a productive conversation (or, at least as productive as realistically possible). Is that [[your experience, too? WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:54, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't think the objection people have to non-neutral questions is that they make it harder to have a productive conversation; it's my experience that people tend to ignore the specific question and just discuss the topic and that they read a lot more than the question before contributing. I think people are just offended by having their views belittled by a question worded in a way that assumes their position is wrong. Non-neutral questions offend me even when I'm not involved and don't have a position, because of the lack of consideration the author shows for opposing views.

I'll give you a (made-up) example: "Should this actor's insignificant community theater award be listed in the article?" The question appears to be biased against including the community theater award. But the commenters are not actually going to answer that question (which is unanswerable for anyone who believes the award is significant). Instead, they'll address the question, "is this actor's community theater award significant enough to include it?" But it's still offensive that the RfC framer implies one side in the significance debate is obviously wrong. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 17:01, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

We're taking it as read that anyone who disagrees with me is obviously wrong, right? ;-)

What's I'd like to stop is the ritual posturing about "This RFC is invalid because the question is non-neutral!" In my experience, this argument usually appears when a respondent disagrees with the OP and believes that "his side" is going to "lose". This happens all the time – at hundreds of RFCs.

Here's an example from last year: "How should the current news story regarding the question over [BLP's] awards be presented in the article?" The OP listed two sets of options for possible sources and invited comment on those two sets. The OP opposed one set as being unreliable.

Does that sound like a non-neutral question to you? It doesn't to me.

But this question drew responses such as "the language of this laughable RfC is completely dishonest" and "one of the worst examples of biased push-polling I have ever seen".

Why couldn't the critics have followed the OP's lead and said they thought both possible sources were unreliable? I honestly don't know. What I know is that they decided to expend a lot of energy on the perceived non-neutrality of the RFC question instead. I am guessing that they wanted to see "Option 1, Option 2, and None of the Above" explicitly spelled out.

It's this kind of sideshow that I want to discourage. If you're glancing through the RFC list and find something interesting, then I don't want you to look at it and run away because people are being rude and arguing about whether editors like you are too stupid to think that the set of valid answers to "How should this be presented?" could include "Probably not at all, and definitely not with those sources".

I think that one way to improve this situation is to provide a small amount of soft guidance about what to do when you're not the OP, and you're panicked because you think that people will disagree with you. It might help, and I don't think that it will hurt. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:30, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree. The advice to make the RfC statement neutral is good, but the effect of not following it isn't to make the RfC invalid, it just makes it of lower quality. And nobody should debate, in the RfC discussion, whether the statement is neutral. I would say the best response to an RfC statement you find to be non-neutral would be to ignore the fact, unless you think it might actually subconsciously bias a commenter, in which case you should add something to the discussion to make commenters conscious of that. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 16:30, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

The

This page is for discussing the Requests for comment page and its subject. For information on how to request that someone close a discussion, see WP:Closing discussions#Closure procedure.

By the way, in case it isn't clear, Legobot automatically removes the tag after 30 days, because that usually means the discussion has gone stale and no one bothered to close it or otherwise remove the tag. Ideally, someone determines before that that no further comment is needed and removes the tag manually. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 15:26, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Is it not possible to add an RfC to an AfD discussion (like this [1]), especially if the Afd discussion is a test case and I feel input from the wider community would might help overcome a mere local consensus? Must XfD discussions only be handled by regulars? Siuenti (씨유엔티) 13:53, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

You mean add an RFC tag to an AfD discussion, in other words make the AfD simultaneously an RfC. No, they should be separate things. RfC discussions are supposed to be on talk pages, and there should be a new discussion started specifically for an RfC. AfD discussions need not be handled only by regulars - newcomers are welcome and their opinions valued, but they must be handled by people who choose to participate in AfD discussions, and those people are presumably already doing that without the help of RfC publicity.

I don't know what you mean by test case, but if you mean you the article in question is supposed to be an example to clarify the deletion policy, then an RfC on the deletion policy (discussed on that policy's talk page, or that of one of the pages that seeks to clarify it) would be the way to do that instead. Citing examples of past application of policy hardly ever works on Wikipedia to win an argument about a current application. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 15:57, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

@

XfDs, is by its very nature a "request for comment", albeit one with rather narrow boundaries - we are inviting people to comment on whether or not the article should be kept/merged/redirected/incubated/transwikied/renamed/userfied/deleted. So adding {{rfc}} as well is at best redundant, at worst disruptive. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk

) 18:47, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, it would be kind of like MfD'ing an AfD or something... besides which, on the merits, with all due respect this seems like the most obscure and unimportant-whether-it-exists-or-not page I can imagine, so this'd be the worst case for more publicity I would think. Herostratus (talk) 20:39, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

You think nothing is less worth worrying about than

WP:Linkrot ? Siuenti (씨유엔티

) 23:01, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

@

WP:RFC. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk

) 16:20, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't mean to wrongly denigrate the effort, I apparently misunderstood the situation. I thought it was about whether Banco de Ponce (disambiguation) should exist or not, and since there are only two possible targets for "Banco de Ponce", then either Banco de Ponce is going to be the primary topic with a hatnote pointing to the other use, or else Banco de Ponce will be a disambiguation page... either way, Banco de Ponce (disambiguation) will have no incoming links and almost never be accessed, so whether it exists or not doesn't matter much. I guess I misunderstood and it has something to to with linkrot on external links or something, so, sorry. Herostratus (talk) 17:26, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

This why we actually need to talk about things at the risk of appearing to badger every single !voter. "

WP:CHEAP to keep. Siuenti (씨유엔티

) 19:39, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, you need to talk about things: but there is a place for everything. Discussions concerning the content of a page belong on the talk page of that page, in this case it would be

WT:Linkrot

.

Since you clearly have reasons for not deleting the page Banco de Ponce (disambiguation), the place for those views is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Banco de Ponce (disambiguation), and not here - and not in an RfC either. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:08, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

By coming here I finally managed to elicit some reasoning from Herostratus, I have had almost no luck at all eliciting reasoning from !voters voters in the Afd. Siuenti (씨유엔티) 21:16, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

• @Giraffedata and Herostratus: This was resumed at 11:24, 25 May 2017 (UTC) by Siuenti (talk · contribs) at Wikipedia talk:Deletion process#Why not RFC on XFDs?. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:47, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Notice of Request for comment

FYI

I have started a formal Request for comment that may affect Wikipedia:Requests for comment. It is at Wikipedia talk:Deletion process#RfC on holding RfCs within XfDs. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:47, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Following Pages getting added with incorrect information

3 incorrect information is being added 1. Reference of "National Club" title for Mohun Bagan. Under Right to Information Act of Indian Government I have got reply that no Indian club is national club. 2 About First Derby match between East Bengal and Mohun Bagan 3.Head to Head records between two clubs. In this respect I am provding 3 authentic links ^{[1] [2] [3]} I am modifying the 2 pages but wrong information is being added repeatedly. I welcome discussion and debate regarding this. Rony DasguptaDasgupta.rony (talk) 05:20, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

@

Talk:Mohun Bagan A.C. and Talk:Kolkata Derby respectively. There is more information at Wikipedia:Questions. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk

) 09:31, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

I made these 2 templates: {{botsummoned}} and {{Botsum}} so that when !voting you woudn't have to type out (Summoned by bot) by hand. Its more of a convienence thing than a necessity. However, both templates output nearly the same text. Which one is better, the longer name or the shorter name?

{{botsummoned}} displays (Summoned by bot)

{{Botsum}} displays (Summoned by bot).

Thanks, d.g. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 13:12, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Where are we presently advised to note that we were summoned? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:39, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Redrose64 No where, as far as I know. I have seen it used often by many users in nearly every RFC I've participated for some time, so I thought this would make it more convinient. I suppose some people might use to ward off possible canvas/meatpuppeting allegations. d.g. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 21:54, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

It's fine. Yes it's often polite and good protocol to say you were bot summoned, for various reasons (it's not always necessary and is never required). Sure the templates are fine. Herostratus (talk) 23:22, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Herostratus Thanks for the input, do you feel one is superior to the other? d.g. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 00:06, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

{{

Botsum}} in my opinion. Herostratus (talk

) 05:18, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't think it's at all necessary to say why you arrived at an RfC discussion. RfCs are open invitations for anybody to weigh in, and intentionally so: that's the point.

WP:RFC/BIO on their watchlist, and this is not bad practice. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk

) 08:38, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree with all that, and sometimes these statements sound like the person is justifying participating in the RfC, which is wrong, but I understand why people do this: People have a hard time believing their mindset is not everyone else's too, so when the consensus in a discussion goes against them, they often suspect cheating. When every stranger is on the same side of an argument, these folks suspect the strangers were canvassed and as a result, don't respect the consensus. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 16:14, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Did you really mean to ask which name is better? I prefer the longer name - easier to remember, but the longer expansion - easier to understand. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 16:05, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

The little "Good questions"/"Bad questions" box in the "Statement should be neutral and brief" section is nice but it should have an example of a question that violates the neutrality requirement. Usually this takes the form where the nominator indicates their own response to the question as well as the question itself. Does anyone object if I add under Bad questions "Should the highly unsuitable picture in the lead be changed? Zero^talk 01:40, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

The Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/RfC: Wikimedia referrer policy was transferred from Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) due to page size. However, the Legobot hasn't updated the list subpage of "Wikipedia policies and guidelines" yet. I noticed that the listing still links to the WP:VPP. Also, the bot's owner Legoktm (talk · contribs), whom I invited, is less than active lately. What can be done about this? --George Ho (talk) 11:17, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Mz7 copied the |rfcid= parameter, something that should never be done - it is used by Legobot as a unique key and so Legobot assumed that the discussion was still in the old place. This edit will force Legobot to update its data table, also the RfC listings. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:24, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

And I see that Legobot added the rfcid number. I'll let Legoktm about this to disregard the issue. Thanks. --George Ho (talk) 12:26, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for pointing that out, Redrose64. I'll keep that in mind for the future. Mz7 (talk) 14:12, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

I am requesting for comment on queries and edits I posted on the talk page of the article Smartmatic. I am a journalist researching the topic of voting and I came across this article and realized much of the information listed was incorrect and the sources provided were either dead links, or did not exist. As an editor, I took it upon myself to correct those facts. After making the edits, use ZiaLater reverted them to his/her version of the article without explanation. Each edit I contributed was listed in the talk section prior so other editors could comment. ZiaLater did not comment or disagree with the edits. Rather, he/she reverted the edits without explanation days after I asked for comment. He/she has also questioned my credibility because I live in the Philippines and accused me of whitewashing. I am requesting other Wikipedia editors to review the queries I posted in the talk page and provide consensus on the edits. Thank you! Carriedelvalle23 (talk) 09:52, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

@

WP:DR. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk

) 10:38, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

In regards to this, should I start an RfC or take this to another venue? Chris Troutman (talk) 00:46, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

I see two things in "this": 1) question as to whether the Andrew Orlowski piece is a reliable source; 2) question as to whether the article has a non-neutral point of view. There's also a sideways reference to conflict of interest, but from the associated edit history, I think that's actually been resolved.

WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard and WP:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard are better places for those than an RfC. People interested in these tricky technical issues know to find them there. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 23:58, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

I'd do

WP:RSN for the specific issue of whether the source is appropriate in this context. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk

00:14, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Are IP-users allowed to "vote" on RFC:s relating to the above topic? I believe it is unlikely that they are, considering the 50/300 and 1RR rules. And the general concerns about sock puppets. ImTheIP (talk) 20:56, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

If the talk page (n.b. not the article) is not protected (

WP:RFB. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk

) 22:00, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Regarding Talk:Whataboutism#RfC:_Introduction_to_the_subject:

Was it alright for me to subsection out sections in the Survey section to have separate sections for:

1. Previously involved editors
2. Previously uninvolved third-party respondents to the RfC

As I did, with edit, DIFF ?

Is that alright ?

Isn't the whole purpose of the Request for comment process on Wikipedia = to draw in previously uninvolved third-party respondents to the RfC ?

Thank you,

Sagecandor (talk) 21:38, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't think it is alright.

It's true that the purpose of an RfC that follows a nonconclusive discussion is to get comments from a wider class of people, but it's also true that an RfC should stand on its own and that participants in the previous discussion are equal participants in the new one.

In the survey section in particular, I can't imagine why we would want to establish two classes of voters.

The split makes it look like RfC is about jurors arbitrating a dispute between editors, which is more of a Third Opinion thing. RfC is "try again with more people".

Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 23:04, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

@Giraffedata:Thank you for your input. So why does the first sentence of this RFC page say, "Requests for comment (RfC) is a process for requesting outside input" ? Sagecandor (talk) 02:46, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

It says that at the top because RfC attracts attention to the page from people who do not have the page on their watchlist, via the actions of

topic bans

) to weigh in, including those with no previous knowledge.

The objection is to your segregating votes into two classes, which could be seen as "

caballistic". --Redrose64 🌹 (talk

) 09:11, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Okay sounds good. Sagecandor (talk) 11:47, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Sagecandor, you aren't the first person to think of this approach. It has been used, albeit rarely. If the previous discussion on the talk page has been voluminous, unproductive, and argumentative, and if the page has been dominated by a small, stable group of editors for a long time, then IMO there can be some value in segregating comments. IMO the main benefits are:

1. A separate section helps 'outside' voices realize that their view is actually needed (i.e., there may be a thousand angry words in the RFC section, but there actually hasn't been any/much "outside input" posted yet).
2. A separate section discourages the 'inside' voices from directly (and endlessly) arguing with newcomers.

But IMO this approach should be considered only in extraordinary cases. (Also, I'd suggest putting the "Previously involved" section second, so that newcomers don't have to scroll past it.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:58, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I have a question on how to proceed with an article following the RfC process: Once a discussion has closed and consensus is reached, what should be the next steps to follow through on that consensus? For example, if editors overwhelmingly are in favor of making a change, how should that be done?

Specifically, I requested comment from editors in April 2017 on the International Justice Mission article about how best to treat the article's Criticism section. The consensus from the RfC was to incorporate criticism throughout. Since I have a conflict of interest as I work with IJM, it isn't appropriate for me to directly edit the page, so I posted this edit request, asking editors to look at moving the details to other sections of the article as agreed upon during RfC. While there was further discussion and seeming agreement, there was still no action, so I shared a suggested draft for editors to consider. Two months later, an editor reviewing edit requests suggested I post to two WikiProjects again for editors to consider, which I have done.

It seemed that the RfC process generated good feedback, but the discussion ended there. Is there another place I should go to follow up on an RfC? Advice from editors here is greatly appreciated. Best, SE at Int'l Justice Mission (talk) 17:49, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

It sounds like you're taking a reasonable approach. The main problem is that most editors would usually rather

WP:VOLUNTEER

to do their own favorite things, which does not appear to include improving that article.

Have you tried proposing a very small, simple change using {{Request edit}} – just one change at a time, to take a baby step towards the eventual goal? Posting a single, small, simple change means that it would be relatively for most editors to review, and it's my guess that if you posted a {{Request edit}} to, say, move an existing sentence from one paragraph to another, then it would get processed in due course by whichever editors like volunteering in that process. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:14, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi, everyone. Opinions are needed on the following matter: Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#A bot able to alert many WikiProjects to an RfC about a policy or guideline matter?. A permalink for it is here.

I also think further discussion about mass notifying in the case of guideline and policy RfCs should take place here.

I need some assistance with regards to this RFC that I created: Talk:Right_of_return#RfC:_Domestic_immigration_laws. I created it on August 20 to gather feedback on an issue I raised. Unfortunately, the RFC has so far failed to get the attention of the community and has only attracted a few "drive-by" votes from otherwise non-involved editors. No discussion at all has been generated. So how do I protest the closure of the RFC? If it is a niche topic, then it seems silly to only let the RFC be open for a month! ImTheIP (talk) 16:30, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Drive-by !votes they might be, but one of the things about the

WP:RFC process is that is intended to call in otherwise non-involved editors. If you don't want them popping by, don't use {{rfc}}. Have you discussed the matter with TonyBallioni (talk · contribs)? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk

) 18:46, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

I think I closed this after Cunard requested it be closed at ANRFC. It'd been open for a month, and while the !votes at the end were concise, they were also pretty clear: they felt that the content was relevant to include in the article, which is a valid reason to argue for its inclusion in an article. I thought it was unlikely to get more participation by staying open any longer, so I closed it since another editor had requested a formal close. I'm fine if any other uninvolved editor here wants to review my work. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:52, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. I don't know all Wikipedia policies but my intention behind creating an RFC was to start a discussion. To hopefully bring in people who are knowledgeable. Primarily because it was just me and Icewhiz discussing before (Talk:Right_of_return#Domestic_immigration_laws_are_not_about_Right_of_Return) and it wasn't possible to compromise. If instead, RFC:s are only meant to stay open for a short period of time and then let the majority "win," then I created it in error. I don't have any Wikipedia "allies" which I can rally around my cause. ImTheIP (talk) 19:13, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

RfCs are typically open for thirty days, since this is the time after which Legobot (talk · contribs) will remove the {{rfc}} template and delist it from Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Politics, government, and law (and similar pages). RfCs may be closed early, or continued after the {{rfc}} has gone.

When the RfC question is 'Should this article have a section called "Countries with laws conferring a right of return"?' you should expect a number of yes/no answers with little discussion. It's not clear - either from your post above or from the RfC - what sort of discussion you were hoping for. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:10, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Fwiw, I have requested that the RFC stays open. Although a user on that page disagrees and wants it to stay closed. I thought that the RFC process was primarily about seeking input (Request for Comments), similar to how the IETF Request for Comments process work. Not to establish article content by majority votes. Clearly that was my own fault for not understanding how the wiki's rfc process works. ImTheIP (talk) 20:14, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

It is a Request for Comments, but you cannot force people to comment. If they choose to give one-word responses, that is their right. Nothing in

WP:TPG when so doing. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk

) 22:03, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

If you want a response that is more "comments" than "votes", then it's useful to ask more open-ended questions. "Should we have this section?" usually gets !votes. "How should we handle this subject in this article?" will usually get you comments (although likely from fewer editors). WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:33, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I mistakenly thought RFC:s had to be formulated as yes/no questions. In the future I'll avoid the process because it doesn't seem to be likely to attract the opinion of topic experts. ImTheIP (talk) 13:42, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

You do seem to be confusing two uses of RfCs. You're completely right that the process is fundamentally for requesting comments, but one major use of RfCs is to have comments that establish a consensus to resolve a dispute between a small number of editors. In fact, people often think this is the only kind of RfC and take RfC for some kind of arbitration system. So you probably saw the widespread advice that an RfC must state a simple question, preferably a yes/no one — advice meant only for those RfCs that are meant to resolve a dispute.

In this case, though, it really does look like there's a dispute to resolve, and I think it's unlikely that just getting additional information from topic experts, even highly respected ones, would resolve anything. The original disputants aren't going to change their positions. The only hope for resolution is for something like what happened here: enough people reached the same conclusion to call that conclusion consensus of the Wikipedia community in spite of other people still disagreeing. And that could happen only because there was a simple yes/no question. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 18:06, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm certainly open to change my opinion if convincing arguments can show that I am wrong. That's the whole point, isn't it? We discuss things and let the best arguments win. In this case, I don't think convincing arguments were displayed. In fact, I don't think the majority of my arguments were even debated. ImTheIP (talk) 21:30, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

First, let me apologize for your confusion over the yes/no thing; I helped write that section some years ago, and I did want to emphasize that approach (because it's usually better – except when it's worse, of course). But I never meant it to be exclusive, and it sounds like the result was less clear than ideal. Second, if you want "expert" comments, then WP:Peer review might be a better target.

And finally, your last comment had a strange line break, so please look at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Editing box inserting bogus hard linebreaks .28MacOS X.2C Chrome.2C about a month now.2C only on this site.29 and add your comments if that problem report looks familiar. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:59, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Due to edit-warring, I started a RfC at Talk:Racism_in_South_Korea#RfC:_Inclusion_of_statement but I am not sure if it is framed well and if it is even necessary in this case. It would be helpful if someone could have a look if all the formalities are complied with. Best regards, --Christian140 (talk) 14:11, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

The form is okay (and relatively unimportant: RFCs are really just an advertising mechanism for discussions).

If you think it's unnecessary, then you can withdraw it (just remove the {{rfc}} template code and save the page). WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:31, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. --Christian140 (talk) 16:02, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

We have a content dispute between one editor and a group of editors about the history of

I think if you say, "what do you think?" and are met with deafening silence, you've completed the preliminary discussion. A discussion is over when there's only one party left talking.

I'm pessimistic that an RfC will change anything. If you can't get an administrator interested in someone belligerently edit warring without discussing, I don't know why you'd get one to care about editing against consensus. The latter is much more work for the administrator.

I wish I had some good advice for resolving this dispute, but how to deal with unruly editors is as much a mystery to me as to anyone.

Incidentally, what you have written on the talk page would make a most excellent RfC (and initial comment). Good job. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 17:57, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree, though I am no expert. You have tried the preliminary steps. You have done a good job on the talk page. I don't that RfC tagging is a necessary procedure as it is unlikely to be more useful. The issue is very focused and detailed. If you feel

WP:DR. A mediator may tell you to try sometime else; if that happens, follow their advice. --SmokeyJoe (talk

) 02:00, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks for the comments, but I'm still confused... He is definitely not editing contrary to talk page consensus as there is no consensus at all (since there was no discussion). Are you suggesting

WP:DRN first but the request was closed as premature which was a correct decision, I think -- see relevant discussion at DRN talk page). Yavorescu (talk

) 07:46, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Mediation (

WP:RFM) is for when all parties want it. Since one party won't even participate on the talk page, I doubt that party would sign up for mediation. I see the DRN was closed because the talk on the talk page was 4 months old at the time. Maybe you should try again now that you have been rebuffed more recently on the talk page. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk

) 17:09, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Also, you'll probably get more useful answers if you leave a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:02, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Similar to Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Archive 12#Too_many_RfCs._Require_a_seconder_for_every_RfC and Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Archive 14#To_address_too_many_poorly-posed_RfCs, I would like to propose a second editor should be involved in signing off of the question to be posed in RfCs.

It is today driven by seeing a couple of RfCs initiated at WT:Drafts being regarded as not up to standard and subjected to speedy closing. Unilaterally raised, and unilaterally closed.

Learning from the archived threads, I want to backpaddle from:

• "Too many RfCs". While arguable, it is not the driver, and it not intended to be addressed by asking for seconders. Seconders should help in articulating a good question to be posed, they should not be gatekeepers to the RfC process.
• Inadvertently adding needless bureaucracy. Some might be necessary, but it should be minimised. Some new template coding might be required.
• Introducing "rules of prior discussion", as I agree there can be many situations where this is problematic. It would be quite a hurdle for someone trying to intiate discussion if they have to pre-initiated a pre-discussion.

Wikipedia:Writing requests for comment is an important page on this topic. It contains multiple considerations that should be at least have been read by anyone writing an RfC question.

My latest idea is that writing an RfC question should see the RfC listed as a "draft RfC" here at WP:RFC. Draft RfCs should invite any editor, whether another involved, or a watcher of WP:RFC, or any other editor, to review the question being posed for the qualities of a good question to be put out for comment. Only when seconded does the RfC get templated subsections inviting contributions.

As with the two RfCs at WT:Drafts, I think it would be far more productive to have help writing a better question, than to have people articulating why the poorly posed RfC should be speedily closed.

Thoughts anyone? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:52, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

I like the idea of a request-framing phase for RfCs, and also that there should be at least two editors who think the request is useful before the RfC is listed and begins taking commenters' and closers' time. Or at least that the RfC lists and Feedback Request Service subscriptions should distinguish the RfCs that have been through such a process.

I don't know what "listed here at WP:RFC" means, though. I do think RfCs in this phase need to be advertised somehow.

The two RfCs at WT:Drafts don't seem to be good examples. I don't think either would have trouble getting seconded, and I don't think either could be worded so that the editors who closed them wouldn't still do it. These are cases of people being tired of arguing with the requester (over things other than the specific question on which he requested comments) and want him to shut up. Any RfC draft phase process that involves fresh people would not stop RfCs like this. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 21:10, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Maybe "seconded" is not a good word, but I haven't found a better. The point is not to prevent filing, but to check and improve the question. Objective, neutral, on point, that sort of stuff. "RfC copy-editor"? "Facilitator"? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:35, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

It does look like I missed your point, misled by the term "second". So are you proposing a system where at least one other person has to state concerns (or the lack of them) with the question before it can be filed, but it can be filed even if that person's concerns are not resolved? Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 15:50, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Or... are you proposing something along the lines of an "RFC help desk"... volunteers who would help other (less experienced) editors formulate their RFCs? Blueboar (talk) 16:24, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, Blueboar. To help formulate the RfC question, with a view to helping participants in participating, and a view to helping closers close with an actionable affirmative, or a meaningful negative. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:10, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

I'd probably support a purely procedural step where one or more uninvolved editors evaluate RfCs for neutrality and so forth. I think "usefulness" would be too subjective as a criterion though, and I'd want to avoid opening another location for disputes. It shouldn't grow to the point where we have to evaluate consensus on whether or not to seek a consensus. :-) I'd also support something like an optional RfC help desk, which would allow for greater flexibility in format and could probably be set up by anyone without needing a consensus. Sunrise (talk) 08:06, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

The hardest part of a help desk would be getting experienced volunteers to man it. Blueboar (talk) 10:05, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

I for one would divert time from responding to RfCs to helping formulate them if such a thing existed. I feel that much of the time I spend responding to RfCs is wasted because the RfC is so poorly framed.

Here's a related idea: A new form of dispute resolution in which someone who wants a consensus developed, to resolve a dispute in which he is involved, requests in a forum for that purpose that an uninvolved party create an RfC. So the experienced volunteer doesn't just suggest wording, but actually words it and takes responsibility for its usefulness. He might even be a good closer for it. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 02:45, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Anyone can already do that. It not frequent because a) it requires that someone not involved care enough to do that work, and b) that they understand the dispute well enough, without much caring about a particular resolution, to encapsulate it properly in the RfC for the other parties. Most of us have better stuff to do. :-)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  09:21, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure that quickly raising an RFC, and then quickly closing it, is actually a problem.

Does it waste some editors' time? Sure, but probably not as much as requiring a second person to help write the thing, and the main person whose time is wasted is the person who "quickly" raised the RFC. (If we're concerned about the FRS notifications, then we could add a delay to notifications, e.g., only sending notices about the need for comments if the RFC has stayed open for ≥48 hours.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:03, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Requiring or even encouraging a seconder is a

WP:CANVASS problem. Often even having two supporters early on is sufficient to start a snowball. RfCs should be asked as if they've come from a the void, without any particular camp lurking around the ballot box.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢

 >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  09:35, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

• WhatamIdoing, SMcCandlish,

You responses seem pessimistic, and not following the positive turn provided by Bryan.

Quickly closing an RfC is not a problem, no. The problem is so many RfCs open, and so many of them being hard work to digest before the outsider could comment, let alone close.

The step would be recommended, but voluntary. Not a seconder, but a helper. The helpers in first instance should be recruited from here, WT:RFC, and the helpers should be qualified to be closers, and may well be the closer.

An example just cropped up a few threads below, at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment#Unsure_whether_to_start_RfC. Can someone here help Yavorescu (talk · contribs) with deciding whether an RfC is appropriate, and then help with writing an objective answerable question suitable to invite outside comment and suitable for a closing decision? Not that RfCs necessarily have to have a decision made to be productive.

Personally, I feel it very hard to to write a neutral and objective RfC question on something I have feelings about. I have seen the same problem with some others. However, if someone wants to ask their question NOW, no fuss or delay, there is no intention here to stop them. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:56, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

One person's "pessimism" is another's "realism". The fact that some inexperienced (or RfC-inexperienced) editors need help figuring out how to do RfCs has little to do with volume of RfCs, length of RfCs, difficulty in closing RfCs, appropriateness of the average RfC, or any supposed need to impose or "recommend" a seconder or co-drafter. They're largely unrelated matters. If someone wants to create a mentoring or assistance program for helping people new to RfCs, well, have at it. Those of us who've been writing them for years don't need that.

Virtually no RfC is going to be perfectly neutral unless is says something as bare as "Should the lead sentence contain the phrase 'foo bar baz' or not?" (And someone will still complain that that's biased in favor of keeping it, by having the keep option first!) We're all able to see through minor drafting bias, and it's not a big deal. The big deals are a) grossly non-neutral RfC that rants and demonizes the opposition or (much worse) misrepresent the facts (effects, rationales, background, etc.), and b) non-neutral notices a.k.a. canvassing (either "come help vote" kinds of posts, or invitations to knots of editors with a bloc-voting tendency, e.g. wikiprojects known to or predictable to collectively take a position). It never ceases to amaze me how many people are convinced that when, e.g., anything that could affect writing about fiction is at an RfC then all the fiction and pop-culture (manga, video games, etc.) projects should be spammed with invites to the discussion; that actually defeats the entire purpose of using RfC (unless the question is not about whether to do something, but how exactly to do it – i.e. when non-fiction-focused editors won't care and the point is to get all the fiction editors to agree).

PS: I don't like the idea, further above, of FRS only sending out notices after 24/48/whatever hours, for exactly the same as in my previous comment. The entire point of RfCs and of FRS is to get WP-wide input, so I oppose anything that thwarts that. (If you personally feel you are getting too many notices from FRS, then cut your FRS subscription down a bit; it's entirely configurable.) The problem is that if an RfC is opened and someone who wants it to go a particular way tells a few like-minded people (which seems to often happen through e-mail – you can see people arrive within minutes and in clusters, and they'll have a lot of overlap in their topical editing), then a

WP:FALSECONSENSUS snowball can very rapidly form. This also happens with RfCs hosted inappropriately on wikiproject pages when the wikproject is trying to do something peculiar and knows people not participating in the wikiproject are likely to object (i.e., most RfCs opened on wikiproject talk pages, period).
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢

 >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  09:17, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

OK, thanks. FRS? This acronym does not appear on the project page. Wikipedia:Feedback request service. Looks worth trying. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:11, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

I've added "FRS" to the page. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 16:35, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

SmokeyJoe, is the sheer number of RFCs open at any given point actually a problem? Right now, it looks like we have approximately one RFC open for every 1,000 active registered editors. Is that too many? (Please ping me if you want a quicker response; I really appreciate it.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:05, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

I noticed an IP user replaced Basque with Spanish across several articles. Special:Contributions/89.167.129.54 I have no idea what Wikipedia policy is on this. Seems a little "motivated" to me. I'm not sure where to raise the issue either. Thanks!--Knulclunk (talk) 16:17, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

I know about one of the names: Berryessa. The

Berryessa clan in California came from Basque people, starting from a Basque couple that left Europe in the early 18th century because their chances in Spain appeared to be limited, while the New World appeared to offer a greater chance of prosperity. They spoke Spanish so they could communicate to their traveling companions and fellow pioneers, but they identified as Basque. So it's not correct to call them "Spanish". Binksternet (talk

) 21:48, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Note that the IP address geolocates to Madrid, Spain. Binksternet (talk) 21:52, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't know how this ended up posted on this talk page - this page is for discussing the page WP:Requests for comment and the RfC process described there.

If you want to find out what the policy is on this kind of editing and how to raise an issue if there is one, I suggest WP:Village pump (policy). Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 04:34, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing me to the WP:Village pump (policy). There is a lengthy discussion in the archives Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 117--Knulclunk (talk) 18:16, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

And I think I did it correctly. I carefully looked at a recent listing. I included {{rfc|bio . . . with the closing double braces of course. And I seemed to get the proper box.

If anyone would care to look at my Bettelheim Talk page listing, I'd appreciate it. Thanks. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 19:43, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Bruno_Bettelheim#RfC_on_how_our_lead_should_cover_long_career_but_also_fake_credentials,_etc.?

@FriendlyRiverOtter: Where you say "I carefully looked at a recent listing", I take it that it was Talk:Peter Popoff#RfC over BLP Lead's use of "fraud", yes?

I can tell because you included the {{rfc|bio|rfcid=DE170A3}} template, including a |rfcid=DE170A3 parameter; and Talk:Peter Popoff has the only other RfC to use the value DE170A3 for its rfcid - it was assigned by Legobot (talk · contribs) in this edit. The rfcid values are used by Legobot as unique identifiers within a database that it maintains, one rfcid per RfC - and one RfC per rfcid. This means that you should never reuse an rfcid, and should not even assign your own value for it. Just leave the whole parameter off, and Legobot will choose a value that has not been used before, add it to its database, and update the relevant pages.

This edit will draw Legobot's attention, and the bot will soon fix it all up. Notice how the RfC box now says "Within 24 hours, this page will be added to the following list" instead of "This page has been added to the following list". --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:50, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

@FriendlyRiverOtter: OK, now see the following edits: Talk:Bruno Bettelheim; Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies; Wikipedia:Dashboard/Requests for comment. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:27, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

@Redrose64: Thank you very much. Yes, the Peter Popoff RfC is exactly the one I used. I think I was so focused on the fact that I got a box, I just jumped to the conclusion that I must have done it correctly. Plus, I may not thought something so simple as rfc|bio (double braces both sides) could possibly work. When in fact, yes, of course simple things often work quite well. Thank you again for fixing this.  :-) FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 17:37, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Most RfC's typically are proposed by someone and are signed with them. It helps us see who is suggesting it, ask them questions, and if the need arises, ask them to withdraw it before it is snow closed. A date is only needed for LegoBot, but for communication with other users, the signature is helpful. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:09, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni: Do you have an opinion on changing the guidance as proposed? ―Mandruss ☎ 19:11, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I think changing it to signature would be useful (or even signature and date stamp). TonyBallioni (talk) 19:15, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

I had a run-in with somebody a year or so back when I added their signature to an ongoing RfC that wasn't even datestamped. Their argument was that if their signature was visible on the RfC listing pages, it might pre-prejudice certain people who had taken sides with or against them in the past. They removed the signature and left the timestamp and I didn't argue further.

To the technical requirements. Legobot looks for the first timestamp after the {{

five tildes. Misformatting that is known to definitely cause problems includes: use of date only, omitting the time; using non-breaking spaces or double spaces; omission of the time zone; using a time zone that is not UTC or which has an offset - such as writing 16:38, 17 January 2018 (UTC-5) instead of 21:38, 17 January 2018 (UTC). Sometimes, if {{subst:unsigned}} or a similar template is used, this can confuse Legobot unless the timestamp is entirely outside the <small>...</small> tags emitted by these templates. If {{unsigned

}} is used with an enclosed timestamp and without substitution, this will break the RfC listing entry.

Legobot uses the timestamp for at least three purposes: (i) identifying where the RfC opening statement ends and thus how much text to copy; (ii) arranging the RfC listings in reverse chronological order; (iii) determining whether the RfC is more than thirty days old, thus whether to remove the {{rfc}} template and delist the RfC. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:38, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

I remember this being discussed here in the past year or so. Some people believe there is value in an unsigned RfC comment, and other parts of this page welcome people to use just a date stamp. In addition to the prejudice Redrose64 mentions, attaching a name to a statement is somewhat antithetical to it being a neutral statement. I think it's also true that a signed RfC statement presents an atmosphere of a personal battle -- someone begging for validation of an opinion that has met objection, whereas an unsigned one just looks like someone detected a diversity of opinion and thinks a consensus should be developed.

As for the section

WP:RFC#Statement should be neutral and brief, it's pretty clear to me it's about practicality. It's the date stamp and not the signature that controls the listing of the RfC, so saying you have to have a signature would be confusing here. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk

) 21:55, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

There's what Legobot requires, and then there's what Wikipedia requires. If Wikipedia requires more than Legobot does, the status quo is what's confusing and the guidance needs to be clarified. I hear that you and TonyBallioni differ on that question, and it's beginning to look like we may need an RfC to answer it. Leaving it unresolved seems like the worst of the available options. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:19, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

I think the common practice is that people sign and the aberration from the norm is just a date stamp. At least this is the norm for all the project space RfCs I've been involved with until today. Kudpung has run several major RfCs in the past, and might be able to give his views as to what our common practice is. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:25, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

I think it's pretty easy to determine how common it is not to sign an RfC statement. We have lists readily available of hundreds of RfCs. Just look at a bunch. My experience has been that the vast majority of requesters sign the request.

But it's not all that relevant. Just because most people choose to sign doesn't mean they want to force everyone else to do so as well. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 00:41, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Policies and guidelines are what we do, not what is written down. The fact that this is the overwhelming norm means that it has the potential to cause unintended disruption and confusion if people don't do it. It's just a basic courtesy to other editors to let them know who is the person advancing the proposal, and it aids in communication. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:18, 18 January 2018 (UTC)