Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Archive 17

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Is there a log or other central place where I can look up historical RfCs? If so, where is it?—S Marshall T/C 13:06, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

You can search the RFC archive via a search box at the bottom of the main article Wikipedia:Requests for comment — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 13:39, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm afraid I've been unclear. Let's say, for example, that I want to close an RfC about a drug. Before I do, I want to check the previous consensuses about drugs, in case there have been decisions that ought to inform my close. Where can I look at them?—S Marshall T/C 14:40, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

@S Marshall: Ah, I'm not aware of any category-based filter, the best thing to do would probably be to use wikipedia's default search bar with deepcat or something. (also, if you actually are interested in closing a drug-related (especially drug pric(e|ing)-related) RfC, my best advice is to not). --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 17:41, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

As I was a major participant in that Arbcom case, I wouldn't touch it with a bargepole.  :) But it was the example that sprang to mind. Am I the only person who would benefit from a centralised log of RfC closes by date and subject?—S Marshall T/C 17:45, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

I had cause to look this up at one point, and I wasn't able to find anything either. The best I could do was a manual review of Legobot's edit summaries on the subpages of WP:RFC, so for drugs I would go here. That works as a list of pages where an RfC occurred within roughly the last 10 years (before which the edit summaries are less informative). I suppose the biggest missing piece would be something that takes a list of pages and determines which of them are in Category:Drugs, or some other arbitrary category. Regardless, a centralised log would definitely be helpful. Perhaps ask at VPT? Sunrise (talk) 18:50, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

There has never been any log or record. Because we remove the RFC template (rather than switching it off or swapping it), and many RFCs don't say "RFC" in the section heading, there is no way to find them all. If it was very important, you could reconstruct some of this by going through the history of the RFC listing pages or a more specific page such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Article alerts. Early RFCs are all listed in the history of WP:RFC (example).

Is there a reason why you would want to find only RFCs, and not all the relevant conversations? RFCs don't necessarily represent the best discussion on any given subject, and WP:Consensus can change after an RFC. RFC outcomes are no more meant to be enshrined as the One True™ Community View forever than any other single discussion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:32, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

The clearest example I can produce is this one. I'm now wondering whether you feel I was wrong.—S Marshall T/C 20:07, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Wrong to take notice of the previous RFC? When you are attempting to determine the community's view at one point in time, I think it is good to consider whatever you happen to know about recent discussions on the same or very similar subjects. If you had happened to know about a large RFC on a similar subject that closed just the month before (as in this case; e.g., you knew about the previous RFC because it was linked in the current discussion, or because you happened to remember it), that intentionally ignoring that recent discussion would be inappropriate. I do not think that we should impose a duty upon RFC closers to search for such prior discussions. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:51, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

So I've noticed a trend to try to make RfC questions very simple and clear. A 2020 RfC usually opens with a short, scrupulously neutrally-worded, question stripped of all background, history and context. The expectation is that an uninvolved RfC closer will Resolve The Question. When I close, personally, I want to know the background and the context, and I always try to dig it up, but I've got no way to be sure I've fully grokked it when I post that closing statement.

I absolutely agree with you that consensus can change, and that if consensus has changed, then an RfC is a good way to confirm that. But I also think that there are other times when consensus does exist, and hasn't changed, but there are people active in the topic area who don't like or agree with the consensus. Sometimes, those people are a bit, to coin a phrase, RfC-happy (keen to start RfCs, keen to force others to do so).

Let's imagine a hypothetical RfC where the question was: Should we include the price of drug X based on source Y? and it's followed by a bunch of "supports" and "opposes" from the usual suspects. It appears on ANRFC and an uninvolved closer, who's never previously touched a medical topic because they've spent five years and thirty thousand edits on Wikipedia making articles about species of beetle, slaps a {{closing}} template on it. (Insert meme featuring Admiral Ackbar here.) Can you think of any RfCs about which that closer ought to be aware? If so, how would she find them?—S Marshall T/C 12:56, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

a trend to try to make RfC questions very simple and clear - that would be WP:RFCBRIEF. But yes, there is a tendency to open frivolous RfCs, where the opener has clearly not observed WP:RFCBEFORE. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:50, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

I apologise. My comment above was poorly thought out because I addressed it to WAID who participated in a recent Arbitration about drug prices, and I now see how badly I failed to elucidate my meaning for the benefit of others. I was trying to illustrate how closing an RFC that's just a question without context or reference to other RFCs in the topic area risks subverting pre-existing consensuses that really ought to prevail. My preferred solution would be a searchable database of those consensuses, which closers could choose to examine during the closing process.—S Marshall T/C 21:39, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

I think a searchable database of RfCs would be an extremely valuable resource, far more valuable than the DRV or MRV logs, for example, as RfCs are of strong forward-looking importance. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:13, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

So I've noticed a trend to try to make RfC questions very simple and clear. – This is my fault. We had a spate some years back of very vague questions, and in my zeal to discourage that, the examples were all simple, binary questions, and (because we trend towards rule-following over time), this became The Right Way™, and voting followed close on its heels. I'm sorry. I should have been able to predict this outcome, but I didn't think it through enough. I'm looking for ways to slowly drag the pendulum back towards the middle. We need to achieve brevity (in the initial question) without falling into over-simplifications about either the question or its history.

In the case of your specific example, I assume that the partisans on both sides would provide you with links to anything that might bolster your side and/or scare off any closers with a decent sense of self-preservation. But assuming a normal RFC situation, and in the absence of the database you would like, it might be helpful for WP:RFC to encourage editors to include links to previous discussions. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:33, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that's a good idea.

I think we use RfC as the last step in a chain. Editors mull stuff over on the talk page, but they can't agree, so they have an RfC-formulation discussion in which they reduce The Question to its bare essentials and then ask an uninvolved closer to Resolve The Question. It's actually a pretty good way of Resolving The Question -- and in fact, the best way we as a community have as yet found -- and I don't want to stop editors using it in this way.

But there's an old school way of using RfCs on Wikipedia as well, which I rarely see nowadays. I'll coin a name for it: the Request for Ideas, where editors went early to the community with a seemingly-intractable problem, before the dispute got entrenched and the sides were drawn, and they asked for thoughts rather than votes. Remember those? Nowadays, the old school way is verboten!

Should it be?—S Marshall T/C 15:59, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

No, such community questions should not be “verboten”... but perhaps we do need to explicitly LABEL them differently. Call them “Requests for ideas” or “Request for Input” (RFI) so people understand that they are not “Dispute resolution” discussions. Blueboar (talk) 17:40, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

I've never heard of anyone discouraging a request for ideas under the RfC label. I've seen people discourage vague open-ended wording of a question in an RfC whose goal is to resolve a dispute, but everyone understands that's not the only use for an RfC. If there are to be two labels, one for dispute resolution, and one for not, "RfC" should go with the latter.

And by the way, closers don't resolve an issue. They summarize the discussion they're closing. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 19:44, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

With a lot of the RfCs I see, the purpose of the RfC is to bring an end to a deadlock or an intractable dispute, thereby enabling editors to move on. The uninvolved closer announces The Decision: that's the point of closing. Hence, "resolve an issue". Clearly as closer you can't find a decision where none exists, but even with a "no consensus" close, you can sometimes move the discussion quite a long way forwards just with the right choice of words.—S Marshall T/C 00:55, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Different editors have different ideas about the role (and necessity) of closers. Consider the Wikipedia:Supervote problem: it wouldn't exist if people weren't expecting The Decision to be announced. Perhaps we should rename them to "discussion summarizers". WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:08, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I proposed a merger of "kartel (electoral alliance)" into "electoral alliance" some time ago. However, no one has responded, and I suspect that few people will, since kartel is a niche subject dealing only with Belgian politics. Would it be appropriate to open a RfC to bring attention to the proposed merger? Thanks, Ezhao02 (talk) 16:15, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

@Ezhao02: Well, since no one has responded, you could just perform the merger. It anybody objects they can roll it back and then you can start a discussion. An RfC would be fine too, as long as you're willing to do the work if it passes. Herostratus (talk) 17:39, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. -Ezhao02 (talk) 18:12, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

A dispute over an apostrophe with Jenny Jankel and others that begin at Down syndrome has now moved to Tourette syndrome in a similar form, although the circumstances over naming of the two conditions are different. The frequent misuse of RFCs was mentioned at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine, and it has been many times discussed that the rush to RFC (particularly malformed) is not helpful in achieving consensus, and that we need to do better in Medicine articles. In the interest of avoiding another round of this and this (replete with edit warring), could regular participants here please advise how to best proceed here? Jenny is already suggesting an RFC, which if malformed, is a dispute likely to move on to the next article that has multiple names. Since this is round two, a broader approach might be better, and regulars here are better at wording RFCs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:18, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

The "circumstances over naming of the two conditions" are identical. There is one UK charity that doesn't use the apostrophe S most of the time but otherwise all official and reliable UK sources do. Tourrette's syndrome, as with Down's syndrome, is the official UK name for the disorder. I understand that you, as a North American, find this annoying, but that doesn't make it wrong. Thank you. Jenny Jankel (talk) 08:57, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Your fellow Brit who used to have clients with Tourette's agrees with you, but this is the place to design RFC wording rather than to make the case. I suggest that one of the RFC options should be: Treat as per WP:ENGVAR.—S Marshall T/C 10:12, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Per S Marshall, this is not the place to discuss the content, rather to help towards not putting forward yet another malformed medical RFC. The questions need to be correctly framed and in the right place, which could be MEDMOS or WP:LEAD rather than TS, so that we not see a dispute spread from one article to another, especially with a history of editwarring, personalization and battleground. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:43, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

I believe you're the one getting personal. Jenny Jankel (talk) 13:26, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

That discussion belongs on your talk page.[1] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:27, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

OK. [2] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:09, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

With other communication blocked, here is the specific advice from RFC regulars that is needed:

• Because this dispute spilled over from DS to TS, I believe that if an RFC is needed, it should be broader than one just at one article (TS discussion) to avoid having yet another of same elsewhere (there are many conditions with alternate usages of possessives).
• S Marshall has suggested viewing this as an WP:ENGVAR situation, but that misses one concern: even in the UK, US predominance is recognized in the field of Tourette syndrome (see the talk discussion linked above), so even if this becomes an ENGVAR matter, there may be exceptions.
• Does a potential RFC belong at the talk page of WP:LEAD or WP:MEDLEAD? MEDLEAD is tagged as disputed, but this particular part (strings of alternate names) was not disputed. Are there issues beyond medicine such that this belongs at LEAD instead of MEDLEAD?
• And after deciding the breadth of the question, and where to pose it, then a general question (recognizing exceptions) might be formulated.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:09, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

• Ten years ago it was consistently called Tourette's in the UK. Don't really care where the research was done: practitioners' resources had "Tourette's" at the top; social work lectures had "Tourette's" on those endless, brain-melting powerpoint slides we were expected to look at while a manager read them aloud in a droning monotone; all the case summaries and assessments said "Tourette's". Calling it Tourette Syndrome is weird for me. But of course my personal lived experience isn't a good basis for making a decision about how to name things in an encyclopaedia. I'm not saying it's an ENGVAR situation. All I'm saying is that I feel that ENGVAR should be one of the RfC options. It's about apostrophes so I'd suggest it belongs somewhere like WT:MOS.—S Marshall T/C 17:29, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

• LEAD is a specific page of MOS. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:48, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

This might help in RFC framing; when an article has an established ENGVAR, do we add alternates to the lead? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:58, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, because Wikipedia is intended for a global audience. Jenny Jankel (talk) 09:23, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi Jenny Jankel, and welcome to WT:RFC. This isn't the page to express opinions about the right answer. It's a page for discussing how to create an RFC. SandyGeorgia has proposed that the question put to the community be whether an article written in one ENGVAR should include all the other English spellings/versions in the first sentence. You could help this discussion by saying things like whether you think answering this question would resolve the dispute. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:25, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Actually, WAID, S Marshall suggested it was an ENGVAR question. The TS question is not an ENGVAR issue, although ENGVAR is part of the broader problem. I see more than one issue, of which ENGVAR is only a part, and was sure hoping to get some help in how to frame at least three different issues, because every situation is different. And since MOS does not address this, and MOS talk is unresponsive, perhaps a general CENT RFC, in its own subpage, is the way to go?

1. This *could* be framed or viewed as a straight ENGVAR question. When an article is written in UK/US ENGVAR, do we add the alternate to the first sentence, or to the infobox, or neither? The only difference is spelling. Other samples celiac/coeliac, etc.
2. While this could be viewed as both ENGVAR and a WP:NCMED issue, with two options. When the accepted medical name has an eponymous alternate (or visa versa, Asperger syndrome, but Huntington's disease), do we add that to the lead, or to the infobox?
3. While the situation at Tourette syndrome gets into even more permutations of ENGVAR, NCMED and WP:COMMONNAME with multiple factors: both official names (DSM and WHO) are rejected by BOTH UK/US researchers (for different reasons), the most common name is neither WHO nor DSM but is by far the one used in research and by lay organizations, and there are strong ties to one classification system and language regardless of ENGVAR, where the most COMMONNAME has ties to one language and classification system and country.

There are multiple questions and scenarios here, because each situation is different, which is why I don't know how to best frame the question. None of the issues are adequately addressed at MOS, so we do need to resolve it. And then a whole 'nother question is why add "Tourette's syndrome" when the lead already has the most common abbreviation, "Tourette's", so it is apparent to the reader they are in the right place without the redundancy. That is, we also get into what abbreviations are in the lead. Not sure how to get all of those different situations into one question, but it's more than ENGVAR. And the lead of TS now is all balled up in Esses (s). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:28, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

National varieties should obviously be included in the lede, because a British reader would otherwise see "Tourette syndrome (abbreviated as Tourette's)" and assume that Tourette's syndrome is wrong, which it isn't. And by the way, the difference between motor neuron disease and motor neurone disease is not just spelling, but if it were, it should still be included for the reason stated. Wikipedia is global. Jenny Jankel (talk) 15:49, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Jenny, you are still offering your opinion (that is, the answers you would give on an RFC) instead of a discussion of how to frame the questions in an an RFC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:04, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

It's sort of hard not to refute false statements. Jenny Jankel (talk) 16:53, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

I manage (sometimes). You might try something like this: “While I disagree with SG’s Point #1, I think a neutral question could be framed as ... “. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:10, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

I've read over the debate at Tourette syndrome and Down syndrome to get an idea of what is in dispute. First, the dispute is not very deep - the major Wikipedia style questions are answered in MOS. MOS:LEADALT is directly on point and the only dispute over how to apply it has been specific to these particular article topics. MOS:LEADALT says if there is one significant alternative name to the one which is the title of the article, it should be in the lead sentence. If there are more than one, none should be in the lead sentence. There is a question as to whether the possessive is significantly different from the non-possessive. Whether it's a matter of national variety of English figures into how significant the difference is. In addition, there are plenty more names for these disorders that may or may not be significant alternatives. And the existence and significance of possessive names for disorders varies by disorder.

So I would say the only question to be answered is, is "Tourette's Syndrome" a significant alternative name for the disorder, and are there any other significant names? I believe if there were consensus on that, the question over whether "Tourette's" should be in the lead sentence would be resolved.

On the other hand, if there are disputants who have just been holding off until now on questioning MOS:LEADALT, they should speak up now because editors' time could be better spent on an RfC to clarify or modify that MOS section. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 19:41, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

I posted at question at WT:Manual of Style/Lead section#LEADALT and significance last week, and I have so far received no responses. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:24, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

At Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Robert_Fico_-_non-free_image_spam, someone wrote

I'm starting to wonder whether there should be an RfC review page, analagous to Deletion Review.—S Marshall T/C 11:01, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

I have wondered this too. Specifically, I have suggested that RfC close reviews could be hosted at WP:Move review, but renamed WP:Close reviews. Or create a new WP:RfC reviews.

Advantages of WP:DRV and WP:MR is that they archive nicely and are easily searched. Disadvantages of WP:AN are that it is a drama board, a kangaroo court of no defined scope limits, too busy for watchlisting, and overwhelming archives make it difficult to search.

I think MRV is a better comparison than DRV, because DRV is strictly about deletion. However, MRV was directly modelled on DRV. I don’t know about pre-DRV days, but MRV resulted in a dramatic improvement in behaviours at WP:RM discussions, it is successful.

All processes should be reviewed. Processes work according to rules, based on assumptions. Reviews are good forums to examine the assumptions and processes. They are an essential part of continuous improvement. Doing the reviews on a dedicated page gives the review process more respect, and a respected review process gives the larger process more respect. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:02, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

• Perhaps we should draft a proposed RFCR page so people can see what it would look like? I've begun an early draft in User:S Marshall/sandbox which anyone is welcome to edit.—S Marshall T/C 14:37, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
• I believe that AN/ANI is the usual forum. WP:ANRFC says "If you disagree with a particular closure, do not dispute it here. Please discuss matters on the closer's talk page instead, and, if necessary, request a closure review at the administrators' noticeboard" (emphasis in the original). Wikipedia:Closing discussions#Challenging other closures gives the same advice: talk to the closer personally first, and then WP:AN. This page should probably point people to some place for appeals (it could be right here, if you don't like WP:AN), but IMO it doesn't come up often enough to warrant creating yet another specialized noticeboard. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:14, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
  • There is no doubt that WP:AN is the usual forum. If you don’t like more forums, I suggest merging it with WP:MR. I don’t think too many forums is a problem here, except for the watchlisting problem, if you don’t have the page watchlisted, you won’t know something is happening. That is a problem with the structure of WP:MR, the discussions are on subpages of subpages of the top page. I think a structure like WP:MfD is best, where every new discussion is an edit transcluding onto the top level page. Actual review discussions get their own page, which is good for watchlisting discussions you’ve contributed to, or decided to watch. A huge problem with WP:AN and WP:ANI, and the Pumps, is that they host so many parallel discussions that watchlisting is made useless. With watchlisting not useful, the board tends to be dominated by regulars, which is a bad thing. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:38, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
    • What do you think about having a new section in WP:ANRFC? The review happens at the article, and the request is listed in a seprate section at ANRFC. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:30, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
      • Maybe by the magic of transclusion we can do all of the above? So there's a subpage for the review that's transcluded to the article talk page, ANRFC and also a consolidated RFCR page?—S Marshall T/C 18:38, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
• I am for discussing anything that aids navigation. -- Otr500 (talk) 12:35, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Please see Draft:Kai Imhof. I reworked it how it was asked for. Since 40 days there was no re review. What’s the best way to get faster review? Thanks so much for your help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8109:9D40:2FB0:D8EA:EE22:BD5E:C9AC (talk) 09:18, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

This is out of scope for this page, which is for discussion improvements to the page Wikipedia:Requests for comment. Try WP:HD. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:14, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Is it possible to get someone not involved to close this now, it's been there for nearly a month, and it feels people are going round in circles on the subject. Govvy (talk) 12:07, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

@Govvy: You should post a request at WP:AN/RFC. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:12, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

• It's already been listed there.—S Marshall T/C 16:57, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

During June 2020, we are going to try an experiment to see whether editors want and benefit from help with writing RFC questions. This is optional. If you want help, here's what to do:

1. Start a ===New subsection=== inside this discussion thread. Please give us:
   • a link to the article or other related page,
   • a suggested question (don't include the {{RFC}} tag, but do tell us if you know which categories you think are appropriate),
   • a short explanation of why you want to have an RFC, and
   • optionally, a note about why you're asking for help (e.g., it's your first RFC, particularly contentious subject, just wanted to try out the new review process, your last RFC didn't go as well as you had hoped, etc.).
2. Wait for a response. We're hoping that most proposed RFCs will get a response within a couple of days.

Thanks for trying out our experiment. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:47, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Draft RFC question about [subject]

(Put your question here)

Oops, I posted in a separate section below :) [3] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:31, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Should Wikipedia's rules of the Manual of Style concerning context in the lead section (MOS:ETHNICITY) be applied to Milutin Milanković?

An RfC seems to be needed because the MoS is just a guideline (thus it can theoretically be overridden by local consensus) and because of the opposition to applying the MoS to the lead of that article.

One thing that troubles me is that I haven't received any sensible response to my attempt of discussing the issue on the article's talk page; it seems that editors opposed to the application of the MoS either aren't interested in discussing the issues, don't want to bother with reading the guidelines or give reasoning that indicates a flawed understanding of the MoS at best. The issue with that is that the lack of discussion impedes my ability to act strategically in the RfC itself. For example, I don't know which arguments I would have to counter in my response to the RfC and I have to wildly guess around to think of a generally acceptable third solution. I guess I'll just have to wait for the RfC to begin to make the discussion happen. Notrium (talk) 01:48, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi, @Notrium, and thanks for posting this question. I'd be interested in hearing what SmokeyJoe thinks about your question. My initial reaction is that when you frame a question this way, it sounds like "Are we all good editors who follow the rules, or not?" As a result, my suggestion is that you ask about the specific change that you think would be appropriate, e.g., "Should the first sentence say that he was Serbian or that he was Yugoslavian?" WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:34, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi. This is the sort of question I dislike, and find exhausting to unravel. It is almost a parady of jargon. Jargon at this level serves to keep the discussion amongs MOS aficionados, and exclude all others.

Instead, I say, the question should be upfront with the end result of the question. The MOS "rules" (sic) should only then be introduced as a footnote explanation that favours one answer over another.

On the article talk page Talk:Milutin Milanković, User:Notrium at 17:18, 15 June 2020 wrote: "Milanković's nationality is currently wrongly stated to be Serbian, instead of Yugoslav."

There is obvious ambiguity here, given that when Milutin Milanković was born, Yugoslavia had not been created. User:Notrium was incorrect to assert "wrongly". The question is rife with unstated assumptions. I think the answer is best achieved by copy-editing the lede. I suggest avoid the distinction between nationality and ethnicity, it being one of many parts of the world where this is contentious. Can the lede instead state where he was born, or lived, or worked?

I think an RfC here is premature. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:03, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

@SmokeyJoe: He was born in 1879 in Dalj in Austria-Hungary (now in Croatia). He went to school in Osijek (also in Austria-Hungary then, and now in Croatia). He became famous already while working and living in Vienna from 1896 to 1909. He worked and lived in Serbia only from 1909 to 1914. He then worked and lived in Budapest from 1914 to 1919. Thereafter it seems he worked and lived solely in Yugoslavia until his death in 1958.

It seems to me it would be better to stick to MOS:BIO than mention all that in the lead, but I would of course appreciate a more specific suggestion. Notrium (talk) 18:08, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Notrium, a passing mention of where he lived at each point in his life would not be unreasonable for the lead. If you want to ask this question, then I think you should ask it directly, maybe with a bullet-point list of each option and the years next to it. Additionally, you'd probably want to add information about his family, because where you are born or live is not the sole, or even main, determinant of ethnicity for many people. I could move to Vienna for the rest of my life and yet never become Austrian. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:27, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Note that Serbs in addition to being an ethnic group is and was a Nationality. So it's not as easy as he died in Yugoslavia thus he was a Yugoslav. The deciding factor is likely what he called himself. It would be unfair to call him a Yugoslav if he called himself a Serb much in the same way that it would be unfair to call an Estonian a Soviet only because he or she died after the Soviet occupation began in 1939. For similar reasons, it is not always clear whether an Englishman should be described as "English" or "British" (they can choose themselves). ImTheIP (talk) 01:15, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Sausageroll.com.au potential fake news site

I'd like to start gathering consensus on whether or not this news site could be classified as fake news/contentious, on par with Daily Mail.

• One about a teen bashing in Melbourne which they have attributed to that the perpetrators were BLM protestors. If you google "melbourne girl bashed June 2020" or similar, you'll find other sources reporting on it. Heck even Daily Mail have done an article, but none, including DM, attribute the perpetrators to the BLM movement.
• Another article they posted was about The Project "condoning" looting and other negative issues that have come from BLM. The article was posted on the 14th (Australia time), and cites the episode "last night" implying it aired on the 13th (Australian time). This show does not air on Saturdays, except for special events. The article is otherwise very strongly worded to promote anti-left sentiment. This is not a question about the reporting of the show's ratings, but that they've reported on content that doesn't exist, ie. libelous.

Given the above, I have tried my best to try and see if this site classifies themselves as satire, but have not been able to find anything that suggests this, so they are taking their publications seriously. As far as I can tell, this site has not been cited on any WP articles involving the movement, not even on Talk pages.

-- Tytrox (talk) 08:25, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Tytrox. How often is this source being used on wiki? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:45, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: I have only found it used as a source in 1 article, which was Q*bert. While the context does not seem to be related to the above, I felt need to take down, partly given another source has been provided since, and that I felt need to challenge the source based on the above. I'm happy to restore it and perhaps replace with "better source needed" or something if deemed applicable. My edit of its removal is here. It source does not appear to be cited anywhere else. When I found this citation, I could not find the source used in any articles relating to the protests the TV show. -- Tytrox (talk) 01:20, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reply, Tytrox. I'm going to suggest that you not bother running an RFC for that. RFCs require a lot of editors' time. If nobody's really using it, then IMO going to all the trouble to set up a "rule" that nobody should use it seems like a waste of your time. I think you'd be better off spending your time improving articles instead. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:28, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: Understood. Thanks for your input nonetheless. My approach was "to try and stop a problem before it becomes one". I'm happy to leave it. -- Tytrox (talk) 02:03, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

@Tytrox and WhatamIdoing: It's used on Skai Jackson. It is possible to search for that on Wikipedia using a query like this one: insource:"sausageroll.com.au" Notrium (talk) 01:56, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

@Notrium: Thanks for that. It seems like new-news timeline wise. Looking at the source's article, they use language that is not neutral, almost like a tabloid, which is what I was afraid of that they'd do and which is why I want to put them in the same boat as DM. In this case, given it's not the only source to post something about the controversy, I'll tag it with "better source needed". -- Tytrox (talk) 04:21, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

I added the rfc template to a discussion on the talk page for Political history of the United Kingdom (1945-present). The bot added a ID but a moment later removed the template describing it as expired I reverted the second edit but though the template now says otherwise the discussion does not appear to have been added to any of the lists. Has anyone else encountered this problem or know how to deal with it? Llewee (talk) 18:27, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Political history of the United Kingdom (1945-present) is a redirect to Political history of the United Kingdom (1945–present), which is an article: since articles are not discussion pages, they must never be used to hold an RfC. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:03, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

@Llewee: Oh, I guess you mean Talk:Political history of the United Kingdom (1945–present). It would have helped, and saved me a lot of wasted time, if that had been linked right from the start. Anyway, I'll try to explain what happened on that page.

• In this edit you added {{rfc|proj|rfcid=BB75E03}} - there were at least three problems there: (i) you added it to the top of a discussion which was five months old, instead of just before your new post; (ii) you didn't sign your new post (fixed in this edit); (iii) you specified |rfcid=BB75E03 - you should not specify an rfcid without good reason; and you must never use the rfcid of an RfC that is being (or has been) held on another page, in this case Talk:2010s#RfC about consistency of information included in decade articles - Legobot assigns the rfcid values, and they must be unique (fixed in this edit).
• Legobot noticed the absence of |rfcid=, and generated one, guaranteed to be unique and never used before.
• Legobot next searched for the first timestamp following the {{rfc}}, and found 15:54, 23 February 2020 (UTC), which being more than thirty days ago meant that the RfC was expired and too old to list - and so it removed the tag.
• You then tried again in various ways, at one point even reverting Legobot - a pointless act, since it is a bot that is programmed to operate to specified rules
• Then you tried altering a timestamp. This worked to fool Legobot, but it means that your post now has a false timestamp, and the posts that follow it seem to be out of place chronologically.

But there is still another problem: RfCs are not for discussing split proposals, for which we have WP:Splitting. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:29, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

I am currently involved in a discussion at GWAR that has a "request for comment" going. The box says it has been "added to the following list: Wikipedia style and naming". I think the argument needs more people to weigh in because so far there are only 4 people that have offered an opinion. I would like to find out if there are more lists I can add the page to, and how to add it. Can anyone help me with that? I am reading the page about how to create requests for comment but I do not see a specific instruction on how to add to lists. In loco parenti (talk) 11:19, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

@In loco parenti: There is no discussion at GWAR, which is a redirect to an article; and articles must not be used for discussion. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:52, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

You just edit the talk page and add the category name to the {{rfc}} tag, as I see you figured out.

Incidentally, Wikipedia style and naming is an incorrect category for this RfC. That category is for discussions about Wikipedia style and naming in general, such as proposals to change the guidelines, and not for discussing how the guidelines apply to any particular case. A discussion about how to apply Wikipedia guidelines to an article should be put in the category that covers the topic of the article. See WP:RFCCAT. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 23:36, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

In loco parenti, as a general rule, you don't want the "style" group unless you're proposing a change to the MOS. The "media" list is the correct one. You can also post links at relevant WikiProjects or guidelines – just a quick "Please see <link> about the correct capitalization for a band" is usually enough. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:05, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Concerning the Kamala Harris article, I am requesting help with how to best propose RFCs for one or more of these issues concerning article content:

(1) Should "Her romantic relationship with Speaker Brown introduced Harris to political and social elites who aided launch of her own political career." be added to the article in the "Early Career" section? References would include a San Francisco Chronicle column in 1995, a profile of Harris in S.F. Weekly in 2003 while she was first running for San Francisco District Attorney, and three profiles of Harris written in prominent news publications in 2019 during her run for U.S. president.

(2) Should "In 2019, the year when Harris ran for president, she missed 62 percent of Senate votes (265 of 428 votes) and was "3rd most absent in votes compared to All Senators," according to a GovTrack.us analysis." be added to the "2019" section of the article? Reference: " "Sen. Kamala Harris’s 2019 Report Card," GovTrack.us" with a link to https://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/kamala_harris/412678/report-card/2019

(3) Should "after passing the bar exam on her second attempt," be added to the article in the "Early Life and Education" section? Pete Wilson, like Harris, is a California U.S. senator who ran for U.S. president who took the bar exam more than once, as discussed in his article. Jerry Brown, like Harris is a California attorney general who ran for president who took the bar exam more than once, as discussed in his article. I believe that the Kamala Harris article should be given similar treatment, based on these precedents.

I want to have RFCs on these issues because they have been discussed extensively on the Kamala Harris talk page, but no consensus has been reached. I believe that some version of this content belongs in the article, but other editors disallow it. This would be my first RFC. If I proceed with an RFC, I don't know if it's better to pose each issue as a separate RFC over a series of days or to post all three at once. I don't know where to post the RFCs -- just on the Kamala Harris talk page? Somewhere on the RFC page (e.g., "Biographies" or "Politics")? I tried the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard with one issue, but it ended up with a Volunteer saying that too many editors were involved, among other issues. Jab73 (talk) 09:17, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Jab73, you definitely do not want to post all three of these questions in the same RFC. You should take then one at a time, which – in practice – probably means one in August, one in September, and one in October.

I encourage you to make your "question" be about whether to include a fact, and not about whether to use specific wording. For example, editors might be willing to agree to include the "fact" that Harris missed a lot of Senate votes in 2019, but they might all have different ideas about how to include it. Or they might want it sourced to a secondary source (e.g., one that compares her attendance to that of similarly situated Senators). Or they might want to leave out the numbers and instead say generically that it's typical for legislators to miss a lot of votes when they're running for the presidency, and that Harrris' attendance was exactly what everyone expected under those circumstances. Your question shouldn't try to settle that. Your question should simply ask whether, in principle, this general fact should be mentioned. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:12, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

I echo both of WhatamIDoing's points.

In addition, I recommend not asking about specific sections; since most of the controversy is probably over whether the facts should be there at all (I'm guessing it's an undue weight controversy), you would want to resolve that without the distraction of discussing where they should go.

And don't ask about adding or removing material; ask whether the material should be present. The current (as well as historical) state of the article is irrelevant.

The Kamala Harris talk page is definitely the place for the RfC discussions. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 01:16, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

An editor has twice started a non-neutrally worded RFC at Talk:Millennials. See Talk:Millennials/Archive_15#RfC_about_modifying_the_date_range_in_the_lead_on_the_Millennials_article and Talk:Millennials#RFC_on_modifying_the_lead_section_in_the_Millennials_article. I don't object to the RFC but I do objected to participating in an RFC that is so loaded and non-neutral worded. Please can someone advise on dealing with such a situation? Betty Logan (talk) 13:04, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Betty Logan I tried to fix it for them [4] but the RfC still appears blank on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Society, sports, and culture? Some1 (talk) 13:57, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Update: It shows up now. Some1 (talk) 14:23, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

@Some1: The RfC listing pages (such as WP:RFC/SOC) are not updated immediately, only when Legobot (talk · contribs) next passes by. This normally occurs at 1 minute past the hour, so there is no way that an edit that occurred at 13:52 will have been copied over by 13:57 - 14:01 is the absolute earliest.

Also, even if you allow enough time for Legobot to visit, you need to ensure that WP:RFCST and WP:RFCBRIEF are respected - the statement on the listing pages will be blank if either there is no valid timestamp, or the statement is too long. In this case both applied: your edit of 13:52 shortened the statement (but not by enough) and there was still no valid timestamp, this being added here, incidentally shortening the statement still further. Then Legobot was happy. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:31, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining Redrose64. Pinging CherokeeJack1 so they'll read this and know for next time. Some1 (talk) 21:45, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Betty Logan, the current RFC question is entirely neutral now, and the original was nearly neutral. It is not bad for such a new editor. If he'd asked for advice here, I would have suggested that he make the changes that Some1 did for him, and that he consider not setting up a "voting" system for how to phrase a sentence. A better RFC question would be something like "Should the lead of this article generally use 1996 as the cutoff date, or should it give a range that spans a decade?" (i.e., the exact wording to be determined later).

It may be a little tempting in the future to use this as the canonical example of a particular phenomenon we've noticed over the years: most editors complaining about an allegedly non-neutral RFC seem more concerned that their "side" is going to lose than that editors won't be able to understand what's being discussed. When I look at the linked pages, you do seem to be leading the opposition to this proposal, and I notice that you posted your complaint here when the RFC respondents were all in favor of the proposed change. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:32, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

This was how the RFC appeared to me. It presented a completely one-sided point-of-view that would have effectively become the "calling card" for the RFC. This also happened in the previous RFC with the same editor. I did not try to get the RFC closed and I made it clear from the outset that I was happy to participate in a neutrally worded RFC, and I simply came here to ask for some assistance. Not only does it seem reasonable to request assistance from an uninvolved third-party in rectifying a non-neutral RFC question, I would also suggest that is the proper course of action.

Given the fact that the neutrality of the RFC was resolved by Some1 in such a way that was acceptable to me (evidenced by the fact that I subsequently engaged with the RFC following the fixes) I find it extraordinary that you have decided to question my motives for posting my concerns here. I would think most editors would "fear" losing a non-neutral RFC which is why we require them to be neutral! I see nothing untoward about that. If you are suggesting that I was playing a waiting game to test the responses first then you are making an allegation about my conduct as an editor and where is your evidence for that? If you look at the timeline I raised the issue at the earliest opportunity available to me: the RFC was initiated at 06.28 on July the 17th; I raised the issue here at 13.04 on the same day. By viewing my contributions you can see I was not online between these two times. Are you aware of any other RFCs where I have deployed such a tactic? If you cannot provide evidence then you are simply smearing me as an editor.

The RFC was not neutral and I am entitled to ask for assistance in rectifying that. Maybe in the future we should consider this whole incident the canonical example of an editor not assuming good faith in response to a reasonable request over a valid concern. Betty Logan (talk) 21:59, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

The practical difference between "Question – My detailed view – Timestamp" and "Question – Timestamp – My detailed view" is IMO not very significant. People who are willing to read long comments will read them regardless of whether the RFC bot considers that to be part of the "question" or the first response to it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:01, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm reminded of this today, because Hawkeye7 has opposed an RFC on the grounds that the neutral question did not include a rationale for the proposed change.[5] So on the one hand, we have an editor complaining that an RFC question included a rationale for the proposal, and on the other, an editor who rejected a proposal because the RFC question did not contain a rationale for the proposal.

I don't know if there is a way to satisfy all of these preferences, or even to give helpful advice. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:01, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm creating my first RfC so I would like to make sure I'm wording it correctly:

Should the edit request wizard be included in policy and information pages regarding COI and paid editing (specifically, Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure#Conflict of interest guideline, whenever in WP:COI the {{request edit}} template is mentioned, WP:Simple conflict of interest edit request, and making the wizard more prominent at WP:Edit requests)?

Some background: I created the edit request wizard about a month ago upon noticing some users with a conflict of interest or being paid to edit struggling to properly format edit requests. There has always been an easy way to request changes for protected pages (using the edit notice that appears when you try to edit a page you can't), but there isn't, as far as I know, a way besides the Edit Request Wizard for conflict of interest requests. I've been pointing some users to it and it seems to be having success so far. Suggestions for improving the wizard itself are also welcome.

Any feedback is appreciated. Thanks, Sam-2727 (talk) 04:44, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Sam-2727, I think you're on the right track. Where do you think you'd like to post this? For example, at WT:COI or at one of the Village pumps? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:58, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, thanks. Probably the proposals village pump because it's related to a broader range of pages. Sam-2727 (talk) 22:58, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Sam-2727, I wonder what you think about my suggested re-phrasing:

I think might be a little clearer. (For clarity, you are not required to take any of my suggestions. Whether you take any or all of my suggested changes, you can start the RFC at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) whenever you want.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:52, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, I like your suggestion, and will implement it when I post the RFC. I'm waiting on some final feedback on the wizard itself from teahouse hosts, but will post it once that feedback is finalized. Sam-2727 (talk) 22:57, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

This song was written by T.J. "Red" Arnall in 1947, you give him credit for the song on his own Wikipedia page. This song was NOT written by J.J. Cale. On J.J. Cale's Wiki page you give him credit for writing this song in 1976. In the early 70's I heard both Dave Van Ronk and David Bromberg perform this song, rather excellently might I add. No way it was written in 1976, I graduated from college in 1975, previous to this I heard the song played. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:6000:B7C4:9700:A929:3272:6D53:E8E2 (talk) 18:54, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Why does this redirect here? The page doesn't mention problem users at all. —valereee (talk) 16:18, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Because it did at the time the redirect was pointed here. The correct target for that redirect is Wikipedia:Conflicts between users. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:23, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

User:Valereee - It appears that the redirect would have been to a section about a now-deprecated procedure known as Request for Comment on a User. That procedure was both rigid and confrontational, and its original purpose seems to have been to request that User:Jimbo Wales ban the user, before either ArbCom or community banning were in place. The procedure then continued to exist, and to be an anger sink, for about ten years after it was no longer needed. That is probably why. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:36, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, both! —valereee (talk) 17:41, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Aydin Aghdashloo’s page is messy . It has been only one unverified allegation again Aydin Aghdashloo who is a living Iranian artist but in his Wikipedia page this allegation has been blown out of proportion. More importantly, there is unreliable source mentioned (that refers to a tweet by a NYT journalist but the tweet is not a first hand source and in turn it’s referring to a person called Afshin Patvaresh whose Instagram page was removed because of publish wrong allegations against several artists . So the end source dues not even exist. Therefore the proved link doesn’t even exist. This seems to be against Wikipedia policy on living people’ biography as well because it can be considered defamation

The 60 years career of Aghdashloo with many achievement is summertimes in a small paragraph while the an unproven a whole multi-paragraph section is dedicated to one  sexual misconduct allegation Also the page is locked while there are many missing updates on life and work of Aydin Aghdashloo. Thank you for paying attention to this issue. Mahshidboz (talk) 07:36, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

@Mahshidboz: This is not the place to discuss the content of an article, please use the article's own talk page. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:13, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi, the RfC at Falkland Islanders expired without a consensus being reached, though debate is continuing. Is it possible to repost it, this time tagging all the relevant wikiprojects, which did not happen last time? If not, what is the procedure? Boynamedsue (talk) 07:31, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

@Boynamedsue: There was no RfC at Falkland Islanders - RfCs must not be held in articles. But there was one at Talk:Falkland Islanders, which was delisted with this edit. What you can do is revert that edit, and immediately insert a fresh timestamp before the existing timestamp, ideally with some explanatory note, such as:

... claim Argentine citizenship."? [[User:Boynamedsue|Boynamedsue]] ([[User talk:Boynamedsue|talk]]) relisted at ~~~~~, originally started at 11:56, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

or better still

... claim Argentine citizenship."? RfC relisted by ~~~~, originally started by [[User:Boynamedsue|Boynamedsue]] ([[User talk:Boynamedsue|talk]]) 11:56, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Within an hour, Legobot will list it at WP:RFC/POL again. As far as WikiProjects are concerned, they are informed by the WP:AALERTS process, provided that they have (a) subscribed to alerts and (b) their project tags are at the top of Talk:Falkland Islanders. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:11, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Err no, it didn't expire without a consensus, there is an pretty much universal consensus to reject the flawed proposal presented, the OP has, shall we say, a creative way of interpreting people who disagree with him. Could we not just get an uninvolved admin to close it (though I don't envy that particular job). WCM_email 11:31, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

You could post it at WP:ANRFC?—S Marshall T/C 11:35, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Universal consensus to reject except 8 of the 15 users who expressed an opinion. Please don't misrepresent the discussion WCM. Thanks for the advice, I will revert the legobot. Boynamedsue (talk) 11:38, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Excluding yourself from that 8, all 7 of which said your proposal was too simplistic but you are counting nontheless as supporting you. I am confident I didn't misrepresent the discussion. You are welcome to the last word as is your habit. WCM_email 13:07, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Misrepresentation of the discussion again. 4 users supported the inclusion of the text, 4 supported the inclusion of similar text with qualifiers, which is an acceptable compromise in my view. Perhaps an attitude of compromise on your part would reduce the "drama" in this case, though I am not holding my breath. Boynamedsue (talk) 15:54, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

A TfD discussion exists to delete the editnotice attached to this page. You're invited to participate in the discussion and your thoughts would be greatly appreciated. The discussion is here. Thanks, ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:22, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

The RfC at Indian subcontinent needs participants. Anyone interested, please, take a look. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 00:16, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

I want to initiate a central discussion on the process for challenging closes. I guess this is a request for comments on a request for comment on requests for comment?

Rationale: Closure of an RfC is one of a tiny number of processes on Wikipedia where a binding decision is made on a content outcome. The power of an RfC close cannot be understated: it can mandate, through dicta, a specific content outcome, which will then be exempt to the normal process of WP:BRD. This has immense utility in breaking deadlocks, but is also open to errors, with no clear process for challenge.

Compare, for example, deletion:

• The process for initiating deletion discussions is clear with three routes offered;
• The default if challenged is to AfD, the longest-standing process;
• Closed is closed, with no reopening for further opinions;
• Closure must be based on policy-based argument not vote count, with a supermajority required in order to delete;
• Challenges at WP:DRV must focus on the closing rationale not attempt to relitigate the outcome;
• Closure is by default performed by admins, with non-admin closure subject to WP:BADNAC and peremptory reversion;
• Appeal is to a well-documented venue;
• During appeal the close stands but temporary undeletion is granted with a low bar.

We are maybe not far off with RfCs but while deletion debates are clerked by a squad of wikignomes who relist lightly-participated discussions and sort and curate discussions to maximise participation, that is not so much true of RfCs. Some debates are identified as contentious and a panel close is requested, but there's no obvious mechanism for flagging this other than posting at Drama Central. There's no clear consensus over whether WP:BADNAC applies to RfCs, and whether admins are "special" in the way they technically have to be for deletion (only an admin can actually delete). Should AfD remove the requirement for admin closure, and impose instead a generic tenure requirement, with a CsD tag for articles with consensus to delete? Or should all binding content decisions default to uninvolved admins? Should there be a "closer" right which is granted like WP:EFH or clerkship?

And above all, what should the flowchart look like for RfC close? I would argue that given the fact it makes binding decisions on content, an RfC close should be like WP:BRD - anyone can close, anyone else can revert, and the debate continues, and if the parties will not accept a close then a three-person uninvolved panel does the needful. But maybe instead we should say anyone can close, and any close can be appealed via a standard template at WP:AN, with the result stayed until that review is complete. Or something else.

MrX, a good editor, has left (hopefully temporarily) because he was upset by my reopening of an RfC he closed, based on my view that his close looked like a WP:SUPERVOTE. I do not want this to happen. I would like to see some clarity about this, and I would welcome comments or suggestions for an RfC to change this Wikipedia page. Unless, of course, you think that the only problem is rouge admins. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:32, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

• Previous discussion, which was archived without result.—S Marshall T/C 22:13, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

• This makes me nervous. I don’t think we want to make it too easy for editors to challenge a good faith RFC closure... otherwise we will have challenges simply because someone did not get the result they wanted. At a minimum, we would need to outline strict criteria regarding what are considered legitimate grounds for challenging a close, and penalties for raising frivolous challenges. Blueboar (talk) 22:24, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

• The point of the exercise is to find and fix mistakes. It should be flexible and adaptable, and easy for anyone to access, including someone unfamiliar with Wikipedia. We should empower the reviewers to promptly shut down inappropriate ones, and trust them to do it. Detailed and comprehensive criteria are gameable criteria.—S Marshall T/C 22:44, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

  S Marshall, yes. And also to ensure that random dudes cannot supervote, while supplying proper air cover for good and experienced people doing good work in good faith. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:47, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

• Blueboar, fair. So how would you tweak it to stop that? Guy (help! - typo?) 22:48, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

I don’t know... that’s why I am nervous. Blueboar (talk) 00:17, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

• OK, so. A formative experience in my Wiki-career was in 2010-11 when a number of us set up an immensely fraught RfC about the first sentence of WP:V, which took a lot of work. It was listed for the full period achieving widespread input, and then closed by a sysop. And then SlimVirgin, who opposed the change we sought, unilaterally reversed the close and relisted it because she didn't think it had been widely advertised enough. I saw that as a blatant abuse (and I still see it that way) but it seemed to be unchallengeable. So we had the whole discussion again, and it got fought to a "no consensus", and the triumvirate close was invented in order to give that close some kind of finality. In the end it took us until mid-2012 to fix the policy wording.

I can see why a sysop should have the power to reverse a close that's about conduct, because conduct is something sysops are elected to manage. I do not see any reason why sysops should have a supervisory role over RfC closes that are about content or wording. If they have that power, then they shouldn't and it needs to be taken away from them. I'm very clear that a sysop who doesn't like a content-related close should dispute it on a discussion board, exactly like anyone else.—S Marshall T/C 00:57, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: one thing I would like seen done is that the RfC be closed with a detailed note summarizing all sides and how much each side is grounded in policy. An RfC should not be based on a vote count. There have been cases where a discussion is closed seemingly on vote count, but later some of the voters are found to be WP:Sockpuppets. Closing the RfC based on policy means explaining the rationale through a detailed closing statement. Any closure without such a detailed closing statement should not be considered a valid closure.VR _talk 02:04, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
• I recently kicked off a similar discussion at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion#Let's talk about problem AfDs. These issues are not far apart. Perhaps we should have a dedicated admin noticeboard where admins can generally bring discussions needing closing and say how they think the discussion should be closed, and seek feedback from other admins on their thoughts without getting into the merits of the discussion under review. BD2412 T 15:26, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

  BD2412, I think that's supposed to be the point of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure, although it's mostly "bring discussions needing closing" and less "say how they think the discussion should be closed, and seek feedback". Also, for some difficult subjects, being an admin is kind of irrelevant. Editors such as Blueboar or S Marshall shouldn't be considered as members of an "inferior" class of closers. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:38, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

  I have almost never seen substantive discussion of how something should be closed in that forum, or on the Administrator's Noticeboard, for that matter. Of course, any editor is free to participate in those discussions, so perhaps I should not have said "admins", but I continue to think that we would benefit from a separate place specifically to discuss how certain closes should go, separate from all of the other discussion boards currently available. Not to be wry, but now I'm thinking we should call it Wikipedia:Discussions for discussion. BD2412 T 05:55, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

  Okay, I have gone and started it. BD2412 T 05:59, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

  We have a tendency to punish uninvolved people for talking about the content of a closing summary. Once you express a view, someone will declare that you're "involved" now and should be prohibited from summarizing the discussion (always assuming that you have expressed the wrong view. Every person who expresses the One True™ View is always uninvolved, unbiased, impartial, and merely proof that The Community™ agrees with me). WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:34, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

• Guy, I mostly think you're asking for some WP:CREEPy bureaucracy to deal with an uncommon problem. Yes, bad closing statements happen. No, it's not usually a disaster. People who object usually chat up the RFC closer, and then take it to WP:AN (or sometimes here; preferably not ANI) for help.
  Perhaps more importantly, I don't share some of your assumptions. For example, I see RFCs, especially RFCs about article-content decisions, as normal talk-page discussions with an advertising mechanism, and you seem to view it as a method for mandating binding decisions. Especially when the RFC is about article content, the power of an RFC isn't in the closing statement or the closer. It's in the community's real views on the subject, which have hopefully been revealed in the course of that normal talk-page discussion. In the case that prompted this discussion, it sounds like a gentler approach to the process recommended at Wikipedia:Closing discussions#Challenging other closures would have been less upsetting. I think it's important to think of writing a summary for an RFC as being less of a power move that should be made by editors with extra buttons, and being more about someone sensibly writing down what the result of the discussion was. In that lens, there are a couple of options, none of which need to have a panel of three admins don their robes and wigs and proceed to take their seats at the bench and render judgment upon the mere mortals. Most of the time, it's pretty easy for any good editor, including editors involved in the discussion, to figure out whether anything was decided, and (if so) what was decided. That gives you the yes/no/no-consensus sorts of outcomes. Sometimes, however, the not-so-obvious outcome is that the discussion needs to continue. (This might involve a different direction/question, possibly at a later point in time.) So rather than invoking BADNAC, which wasn't written with RFCs in mind anyway, I think that it would have been more functional to posting a note to the article's talk page that says something like "There is apparently some desire to continue discussing this question, and some editors don't feel like the outcome of the discussion is clear yet. We could just continue it here, with the closer hopefully joining the conversation and helping shape the outcome, or we could talk about a different 'question'. For example, maybe people could come to some agreement in principle about whether ____ ought to be mentioned in the article, instead of talking about specific wording." It's more of a facilitation role than a law-enforcement role. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:29, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

• I think the context of the discussion is MrX's close about Ayurveda, so I think we're actually talking about a specific class of RFC here: the ones where talk page discussion has failed or stalled, editors can't agree, so they've gone to the community for a Decision. I happen to agree that in that specific case MrX's close was wrong and needed to be overturned. But if I'd made it and a sysop had unilaterally overturned me, I would have written a colossal, furious screed on AN/I within the hour.

For good or ill, RFC has become our mechanism for resolving intractable content disputes. They can't achieve that without a certain level of formality and authority. Reviewing one can't be just a case of finding a friendly sysop and moaning on their talk page: the human dynamics of online communities require Fair Process where there's a discussion, a consensus and a closure. As with AfD, the original decision needs to stand unless and until consensus exists that it was wrong.

I know there's a whole nother class of RFC where editors murmur collegially at each other and come to a reasoned decision. Those are most likely reviewed by chatting on the closer's talk page. But here I think our topic is RFC as a dispute resolution mechanism when the sparks are flying.—S Marshall T/C 10:04, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

The established procedure is:

1. First talk to the closer.
2. If the closer still doesn't agree with you, then take it to AN.

The problem in this case seems to be the lack of gentleness and collegiality in the admins' response to that second step. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:01, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

That's what I think the procedure is too. But when I read Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case (permalink), I can see a lot of confusion about the procedure among our admin corps, including some who think WP:BADNAC applies to purely content decisions such as RFC closes. (Discretionary sanctions might muddy the waters here.) So I think that at minimum we've got to clarify BADNAC to say that pure-content decisions are not something sysops get to overrule unilaterally.

But I read Guy's question as not meaning "What's the procedure", but "What should the procedure be?". I agree with you that our current arrangements are great for 99% of RfCs. There's that 1% that cause all the problems.

Until we started using RfC, there was only one way to resolve an intractable content dispute, and it was to present it as a conduct dispute and report the other side on AN/I. That's suboptimal, to say the least. On the Ayurveda case, we're seeing RfC As Intractable Content Dispute Resolution Forum and that's a fantastic idea! I mean, OK, it's not the perfect way to resolve content disputes, but all the other ways are worse.

I also feel that AN is a suboptimal location to review content decisions.—S Marshall T/C 18:02, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

S Marshall, yes, that's a very good summary of the question I am asking, and why. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:11, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Occasionally, bad summaries are just overthrown, because the editors know it's a bad summary and revolt. An RFC at WT:MEDRS ended that way a few years ago: someone said that it was improper to exclude research from China about the efficacy of traditional Chinese medicine because that would be anti-Chinese discrimination, despite evidence (in the form of multiple articles in the academic literature) that researchers in China aren't able to publish negative results freely on that subject. We weren't having any of that it; we refused to accept the outcome because it did not represent the conclusion of the discussion, and we all knew it.

Somewhat more often, the "bad" summary is one that tried to make a decision when consensus is weak (cue accusations of "not understanding" my side and/or supervoting). And frequently the "bad" summary isn't bad, but someone's behavior is, in which case AN's not a bad place to be.

One difficulty is that if we set up (yet) another noticeboard, it may be hard to attract sufficient subject-matter expertise. It is not always obvious how strong some arguments actually are when you don't know anything about the subject matter. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:03, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes. DRV experiences a lot of the same issues. As with DRV, it's important that the review board attracts editors who didn't participate in the discussion being reviewed, and that a link to the review appears in a place that will attract those who watch or edit the page or pages affected.

I also think it's important that the review board contains a brief guide to the process that sets people's expectations correctly, and that the review should last a predefined amount of time. In fact, there's a lot we can copy from DRV here.—S Marshall T/C 08:01, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

• WhatamIdoing, I think you will find that the community, in routine practice, does treat RfCs as binding on content. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:09, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

  The outcome of an RFC discussion about article content is, and IMO should be, binding to exactly the same extent that consensus is binding. The point of an RFC is to determine consensus, not to lock article content in one form forever (or even for the next year or two). WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:26, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

  It appears that there is a similar subject under discussion at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion#Let's talk about problem AfDs. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:28, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

• I agree with WhatamIdoing, particularly: I see RFCs, especially RFCs about article-content decisions, as normal talk-page discussions with an advertising mechanism...I think it's important to think of writing a summary for an RFC as being less of a power move that should be made by editors with extra buttons, and being more about someone sensibly writing down what the result of the discussion was. I don't have a ton of time to write out my thoughts fully in a comment, but I'm drafting my thoughts at User:Wugapodes/Non-sysop closures and I'll give a more thorough comment here in the coming days. — Wug·a·po·des​ 23:58, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

  Quick reminder ping for Wugapodes. :-) WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:58, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

  Thanks for the reminder WhatamIdoing. The link I gave has turned into an essay of sorts, and I'd recommend giving it a read. I don't think I've come up with particular ideas, but I'm also not sure we're at the "brainstorm ideas" phase yet, so I removed the placeholder heading. The central questions I think we need to answer are: why do we have a (real or perceived) preference for sysop closes? What factors make a closure challenge more or less likely to (1) occur at all and (2) succeed? How can we write guidance that conveys that information to editors so that we avoid biting people with tacit expectations? The essay hints at some potential answers to those questions, but for those who aren't interested in reading the whole thing, I think the following paragraph sums up my view pretty well:

  The essay on non-admin closures presents guidance for navigating these problems without naming them, and the continued conflation of technical and social roles leads to convoluted guidance. In particular, it cautions non-sysops to avoid closing discussions which are contentious, without guidance on how to evaluate that. Non-sysops often close contentious discussions with minimal fuss, and previous discussion has found "non-admin closure" to be an insufficient reason to overturn a close. The problem is that sometimes participants want a stable close, and an easy way to achieve that is through leveraging the social capital of sysops. Because non-sysops might not have the necessary social capital to enforce a stable close, they are cautioned against closing any contentious RfC. This has the perverse effect of increasing the social capital and workload of sysops at the expense of other experienced editors. While using sysop---a technical permission---as a proxy for social cachet is convenient, it harms the community by reinforcing the idea that sysops, because of their account permissions, have greater social power than other editors.
  — User:Wugapodes/Non-sysop closures

  If people are serious about this, I think a good next step would be to do case studies where we pick a couple non-admin RfC closures and try to identify patterns across them. With those results in hand, we can then figure out what changes might fix the identified problems and probably even try a few. — Wug·a·po·des​ 06:17, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

  I now think this discussion is about three topics: (1) Non-admin closes of contentious discussions; (2) The use of RfC to resolve, or at least terminate, intractable content disputes; and (3) The process for challenging RfC closes that fit the profile of topic (2). I wonder whether we should fork the discussion into separate threads. I think that there might be consensus to start a RFCR page at this point?—S Marshall T/C 15:03, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

  Challenging RFC closures isn't necessarily about intractable content disputes. Consider Wikipedia talk:External links#RFC on how to format external links (chosen merely as a handy example): the RFC proposed a specific, word-for-word change to the guideline. The closing admin reported a clear consensus for that change, and then suggested a compromise involving softer wording instead of the agreed-upon wording. It's not a bad suggestion, and I think it's important for Wikipedia's rules and processes to leave room for compromise closures. This specific suggested wording might be enough to solve the actual problem in this case, and in general, compromises can be better than either extreme. This specific suggestion is based on a misunderstanding of WP:PG (there are an endless supply of editors who believe that the words do not should only appear in policy, even though that would cause serious problems for WP:MOS). It is also a confusing closing statement, since it's easy for different editors to come to nearly opposite conclusions about the result. But do I care enough to "challenge" it? I can't decide. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:08, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

  I think we've said that our current ways of challenging RfC closes are fine, most of the time. I think it's the intractable content dispute ones that would benefit from more formality and structure. Do the others need it?—S Marshall T/C 17:24, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

  If the closer is inexperienced (with Wikipedia; with the subject area; with the nature of the particular dispute) or inappropriate for some particular reason (e.g., COI), then a process for bypassing that closer is necessary. That could happen with any dispute, or even with a non-dispute-oriented RFC. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:23, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

  OK, I'm persuaded. I revise: I now think this discussion is about two topics: (1) Non-admin closes of contentious discussions; (2) The process for challenging RfC closes. I wonder whether we should fork the discussion into separate threads. I think that there might be consensus to start a RFCR page at this point?—S Marshall T/C 15:03, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Support RFC Review: One Editor's Comments

Thank you, Guy. I had written that the community should clarify the guidelines on non-administrative closes. Perhaps what is even more needed is a clearer procedure for close challenges on RFCs. Non-administrative closes of deletion discussions, like administrative closes of deletion discussions, are challenged at DRV, but it is clear from occasional reviews at DRV that the guidelines about non-administrative close of deletion discussions are unclear. The regular editors at DRV do not have a clear written or unwritten idea of what is a Bad Non-administrative close. Non-administrative closes of RFCs are the rule rather than the exception, and there is no built-in bias on non-administrative closes, and a WP:BADNAC on an RFC is not really that different from a controversial administrative close.

I would suggest that something similar to deletion review is needed for RFCs, maybe RFC Review. I would add that I don't see the need for penalties for misuse of RFC Review. There are no penalties for misuse of Deletion Review, but an editor who repeatedly files baseless appeals will either be ignored, or taken to WP:ANI for a topic-ban, and an editor who uses DRV for a conflict of interest will simply be calling attention to their conflict of interest. Also, the majority of deletion discussions appealed to DRV are simply differences of opinion, and usually the close is endorsed. A non-administrative closer who makes too many controversial closes will be cautioned.

I support the idea of RFC Review. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:42, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, I am persuaded that the default should be closure by any trusted (implicitly 30/500) user, with a process for review. If the default is not going to be admin closure then AN/ANI are no longer the correct venues for review, and we need to say what the correct venue is. There are some existing venues that might work, adjacent to the village pump or WP:CENT, but maybe a new venue is needed (as long as it's watched). Guy (help! - typo?) 10:33, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

I also like the idea of RfC review, in a dedicated forum for it like DRV. This is different from going to a friendly admin, it's more like expanding the audience, which is generally a good thing. --GRuban (talk) 03:56, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

NAC delete closes (CfD)

So, I strongly oppose the idea that admins can reverse non-admin RfC closes (except when vandalism, purely disruptive, or grossly problematic, eg a sock or a CIR editor), except perhaps as an IAR-like action in DS areas. Obviously excluding matters where NACs can't implement result (ie deletion discussions and individual cases of conduct concerns (ANI)). WP:AN is well-placed to review closes, has been for a while, and can continue to do that role. It's a community matter, not an admin matter, and we can't create two classes of RfC closes, admin and an inferior non-admin. Definitely shouldn't be a closer right - we don't need to create some exclusive circle of closers, WP:AN/RFC is often backlogged anyway, and relatively few closes are problematic.

What I did think was interesting was Should AfD remove the requirement for admin closure, and impose instead a generic tenure requirement, with a CsD tag for articles with consensus to delete? Currently, to the best of my knowledge, this is only done at WP:TfD. Over there we constantly has the lowest deletion backlog numbers, both absolute and relatively (perhaps tied with MfD, although not the fairest comparison). Non-admins can make any type of TfD close, and closes generally can only be reversed by WP:DRV. I don't think this has ever been an issue. Meanwhile, CfD is a backlogged nightmare, going back to July. We shouldn't aim to make NACD (delete) standard; competent closers should be encouraged to seek adminship, rather than asked to do the hard work of closing but told they can't be trusted with the tools to carry out the deletion and instead asked to tag for CSD. Nevertheless, allowing NACs to make the full range of closes would probably be helpful for CfD. Perhaps should be explored? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:56, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

ProcrastinatingReader, I wonder whether, if the discussion were especially contentious (and didn't require specialized subject-matter knowledge), or if it directly affected admins (e.g., changes to the blocking policy), it would be more reasonable to expect an RFC to be closed by and/or reviewed by (mostly) admins. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:00, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, I think it'd be highly inappropriate, personally. At their core, administrators simply have tools to enact community consensus (in the form of PAGs enacted by the community), give or take some discretion. The community is entitled to decide what that policy is, and change it at their will. Administrators should not really have any extra say in deciding/closing policy relating to administrative use of tools, outside of any appropriate 'weighting' applied by the closer, but otherwise they have no extra weight in policymaking, solely by virtue of their role. This isn't to say that an admin wouldn't close a policy which reduced their authority (in e.g. blocking policy) if consensus found such a result, but it seems highly problematic formally requiring it be an admin close such a discussion (even if de facto it usually would be an admin today). Taken literally, it creates a cycle where only admins can formally change admin-related policy, incl blocking policy. Since a close doesn't itself create consensus, I don't think this would be a problem if a NAC made a flawed close. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:20, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

We see several requests a year for a "three-admin panel" to close particularly contentious discussions. Do you think we should encourage the community to ask for "three-editor panels" instead? WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:36, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree that administrators are, and should be, just editors trusted with certain powers to implement Wikipedia policy, and their opinions on content or policy do not carry more weight than those of editors without the powers. I don't know about "three-admin panels", but it sounds like something I don't support. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 04:01, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Three-admin panels are usually deployed for highly controversial decisions. It has the practical effect of not focusing all of the vitriol from the "losers" on a single human. See, e.g., the Wikipedia:Pending changes RFC at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 137#Make PC2 no longer available to admins, which is signed by three admins. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:56, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't think "[TfD] constantly has the lowest deletion backlog numbers" is true. The least backlogged deletion discussion venue is actually AfD, although the numbers superficially appear larger because AfD has a much higher throughput. Right now, if you look at it by date instead of number, then the oldest unclosed TfD dates to September 17, and the oldest unclosed AfD dates back to September 23 (only 8 days ago). * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:51, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

I started a RFC at User talk:Crouch, Swale/England but this was closed because of formatting problems and the questions being too complicated and similar. I have been advised to start over and request help here by User:WhatamIdoing. The RFC is about creating the missing parishes, adding standard information to existing articles and other questions to do with notability and similar. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:20, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Do they need a new section or can it be added in the middle of a section? For example, if a section was created by someone else, I'd have to added it part way through (right?). Transcendence (talk) 23:56, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

• It's really helpful if they have a separate heading, but that doesn't have to be a section: it could be a subsection or sub-subsection. (Help:Section has more on what these words mean).—S Marshall T/C 09:18, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Thanks! Transcendence (talk) 18:55, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
• @Transcendence: Level 3 subheadings are much better than level 2 headings, because making it a subsection clearly indicates what the RfC is related to and doesn't convey the impression that it is an entirely separate topic. It also ensures that when bots archive the page, they take the two parts together and don't split them up, or even worse, archive them separately days or weeks apart. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:42, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Thanks! Transcendence (talk) 18:55, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

We have all seen RfCs where the proponent posted the RfC and then changed the question before anyone responded and before the bot publicized the RfC. I don't see any problem with this.

But what if the proponent posts the RfC, waits until several people have responded, then quietly makes major changes to the question? Is the proper response to this behavior reverting to the original question? I have seen this sort of revert when a troll changes the question (usually to the opposite meaning).

What if if the proponent posts the RfC, waits until several people have responded, quietly makes major changes to the question, then several people respond to the new question? What is the best way to handle such a situation?

Should this page have instructions about this? --Guy Macon (talk) 20:35, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

I think someone who notices this should revert to the original question, because it is too hard to close a discussion with a changing question/request. But I believe this is too instruction creepy to include on this page, because it's kind of obvious and not the kind of thing on which someone contemplating modifying the question would come here for guidance. If this turns out to be widespread and controversial, then I'd support recording the consensus here. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 03:23, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Assuming the change makes even a little sense, IMO the key is how many editors have responded to the original question. You can always notify those editors, by ping or UTP post, UTP post being more reliable and only way to notify IPs; if they don't respond you can assume they don't wish to change their !votes. If that number gets too high, and lots of editors don't respond, that assumption can become a problem. Agree with Bryan as to CREEP. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:42, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

(Weird use of the "moving the goalposts" metaphor, Guy) ―Mandruss ☎ 05:08, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

(Good point; the right metaphor here is probably "moving target", as "moving the goalposts" refers to moving them farther away) Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 04:23, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

As I understand it, moving the goalposts is an unfair debate tactic in which one makes a demand of their opponent, and then, when the demand is met to their surprise, makes a different demand instead of conceding the point. Clearly, that's not what we're talking about in this thread; hence "weird". ―Mandruss ☎ 05:09, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Sometimes, changing the question can be helpful, and sometimes it's not. You would generally accept changes to RFC questions if you would accept the same changes to any individual's signed comment at the start of a talk-page discussion, and maybe even be more generous about it, because a clarification can make the difference between getting useful responses and the RFC failing. (If the original question is confusing, then what looks like a troll might be someone genuinely misunderstanding the question and trying to help.)

Voting-style responses are particularly at risk of being misunderstood in these situations. A response that merely says "Support" changes its meaning if the question is changed. A response that involves a clear, complete sentence is unlikely to be misunderstood. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:13, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel articles#ARBPIA General Sanctions explicitly forbids IPs and non-ECP editors from participating in these, yet most editors don't realise this. How can we make sure that such RfCs make this clear? Doug Weller talk 08:05, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Note that formal move requests have the same restriction. Perhaps there can be some boilerplate added to RfCs and Rms, which can be quite short such as "Participation is limited to extended-confirmed editors." with a link to the relevant ruling. Zero^talk 10:37, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Doug Weller, rather than finding out how to enforce that rule, I think the first question ought to be: Is that rule a good rule? Why would you have a rule that says these editors "may use the Talk: namespace to post constructive comments" but then not let them post constructive comments in the Talk: namespace if someone slaps an RFC tag at the top of the section? I am wondering whether "internal project discussions" is actually meant to cover an RFC about article content on the article talk page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:19, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

@WhatamI doing: it is. This is an arbitration committee decision, but you can ask for clarification or nullification. See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment. --Doug Weller talk 14:06, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

@Doug Weller, I'm imagining a scenario like this:

• New editor: Is ____ a good source for expanding this article?
• Old editor: I'm not sure. This isn't a very high-traffic page. I'll add an RFC tag above your question, so we can get some other editors to help us figure it out.
• Admin: Thanks for your constructive comments, New editor. By the way, you're now banned from participating any further in this discussion.

I'm thinking that's a stupid outcome, and I cannot imagine that it was intentional. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:38, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't think that adding an RfC header to existing text is proper procedure. The correct procedure is to start a new section for it. The new editor's remarks will remain in place and the new editor is allowed to expand it. I don't see this as a serious anomaly; actually it is consistent with ArbCom's belief that non-ec participation in ARBPIA has strict limits. The purpose of the rule is to prevent a more serious problem: someone starts an RfC, a participant calls for help on their private facebook group, a dozen or more new accounts suddenly turn up and !vote identically. Zero^talk 21:35, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

There is no such rule. Editors have been converting existing discussions to RFCs since the RFC process was created. If you think back, you may remember that for the first several (five?) years of RFC's existence, there was no header or template that you could add. We've never banned that natural behavior, and given the problems we have with people starting "fresh" sections in the hope that nobody will read the previous discussions, we IMO never should. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:44, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Nobody said there was a rule. I stand by my assessment of what is now considered best practice. This is especially important when there has been a long and messy discussion. In any case, I described how new editors can be allowed to informally participate, which answers your objection. Zero^talk 04:19, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Doesn't make much difference anyway; whether New Editor is cut off from further discussion in that talk page section or prevented from entering the discussion in another talk page section is not significant. And either way, banning New Editor from participating in a discussion doesn't impede the canvassing behavior (private Facebook group thing) that I can see.

This really looks to me like an error by the Arbitration Committee. The author of that sanction forgot that that RfCs take place on talk pages and contributions to RfCs tend to be constructive comments. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 04:23, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Of course ArbCom knew perfectly well where RfCs take place and later they included RMs which also take place on talk pages. It was completely deliberate and you are simply wrong in your assessment. RfCs and RMs are closed taking into account the discussion and !voting they contain; the closer is not expected to scan the talk page and its archives looking for more discussion of the topic. So it matters a great deal who can edit there. Zero^talk 04:41, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

I need a bit of help. I would like to initiate an RfC about an edit to an article page and whether or not a particular trade press source might be used to support a simple statement:

"After a year and a half of appeals and a variety of legal motions, Tether was eventually forced by the court to provide the requested documents in January 2021, providing over 2.5 million pages of documents to the New York Attorney General."^[1]

I initiated a WP:BRD discussion on the article Talk page after my edit was reverted, but that discussion seems to be going meta, about other media sites that have been considered questionable in the past, but not about the source I used. I've asked if there is somewhere a Wikipedia policy or guideline that says no trade press source from that industry can ever be used; and no one has yet provided a link to such a broad policy statement.

I'm struggling to write an RfC request that will keep it focused on the small issue that I originally set out to discuss, on one fact (progress in a court case) and whether a particular trade press source can be used to cite it, just in the interest of simple article improvement.

Per this advice on the Project Page: "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." Could someone help suggest a way to best and neutrally word the question? Thanks. N2e (talk) 12:40, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

• This RfC consists of two questions. (1) Is this source (link) an acceptable source for this edit (diff)? and (2) Should this edit, or a similar one, be made?—S Marshall T/C 15:36, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. This was very helpful to me in forming up a brief and neutral RfC question. Which I've done now, here. N2e (talk) 20:27, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

This is the question I want to ask:

Should WP:SOLDIER, an essay, be used as a basis for nominating many dozens of soldier articles for deletion?

Would the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Military be a proper place for the placement of the Rfc? Then also what other places?

Cheers.--The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 05:22, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

• I suggest that the RfC venue should be Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history. I think you're likely to attract sufficient participation there without any need for crossposting.—S Marshall T/C 15:15, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you.--The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 13:28, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

A user has flooded the language/linguistics rfc section with about 30 (or so) RFCs, all relating to the demonyms of various national/ethnic identities of Eastern (and at least one African), mostly ex-USSR states, with the same boiler-plate RFC message on all of them, asking if the primary topic of the demonym should be the nationality or the ethnicity sense.

Is this not somewhat a case of spamming? It almost seems like something a bot would be programmed to do. I'm sure the person had good intentions, but surely this is NOT good practice. I feel like the RFC page should state in the guidelines to not use RFC in such manner.

Apologies if this issue has been discussed in the past...I didn't feel like reading through 14 pages of archices :) Firejuggler86 (talk) 23:28, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

@Firejuggler86: There are 21 (not 30), and I have already posted at the perp's talk page, also at the discussion that seemed to have triggered all of this. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:57, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

And we have a new record!

We should get back to that idea of setting a limit on the number of RFCs to be opened by one person. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:34, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

On being made aware, Krakkos pulled all of them on the morning of 31 December. In most cases (those without discussion?), the whole thread was removed; for five of them (those with one or more posts by others?), the thread was left and only the {{rfc}} removed. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:16, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

• I boldly tried to insert a limit, but was reverted. I agree that incidents such as this one, or QuackGuru's behaviour last year, demonstrate that we do need a cap the number of RfCs one person can have open at a time. Volunteer time is Wikipedia's only scarce resource, and we need to conserve it. RfCs are "expensive", if you like.—S Marshall T/C 13:14, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

  This was something of a one-off, multiple simultaneous RfCs by one person don't happen often; and are almost never more than three at once. The real problem that would swamp WP:RFC/A if left uncontrolled is that of frivolous RfCs - those that were clearly started as a first step in reaching a decision, without regard for WP:RFCBEFORE. Sometimes I delist them myself: recent example. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:05, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

  Maybe we should start with a non-numeric limit, such as "It is not helpful for one editor to open multiple RFCs at the same time". WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:11, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

  But there is no sense in that statement generally. Having another RfC open at the time does not make an RfC less helpful than it would be otherwise. The RfCs could be totally unrelated and the only two the editor opens this year, but the issues just happened to come up at the same time.

  If the goal is to limit the burden one editor can place on the commenting public, it would make more sense to limit the rate with which one can open RfCs, like, "Volunteers do not have time to comment on all the RfCs people would like to open, so editors should limit themselves to 10 RfCs per year."

  Or maybe the goal is to consolidate multiple RfCs on similar topics (like the same demonym question about each of 21 articles). Nobody is going to figure that out from the wording, "it is not helpful for one editor to open multiple RFCs at the same time". Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 04:28, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

  In my initial bold edit, I was seeking a simple heuristic, so a sysop can glance at RFC/A, easily identify a prolific RfC-opener, form a judgment about whether it's needful to talk to that editor, and if they decide it is, can point at a community norm. I don't know how you could easily identify whether someone's had more than ten RfCs open in a year. Did you plan to write a script?—S Marshall T/C 12:09, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

  It was far from evident in that edit that it was about establishing a heuristic that would approximately identify editors who post too many RfCs and thus use too much of other editors' time. It read like there's something basically and obviously wrong with having two RfCs open at the same time. Which caused me to scratch my head when I read it.

  I'm having trouble seeing the scenario where a heuristic would help. I kind of doubt someone is going to make a practice of looking for over-RfCers. And if someone did, he could apply the two-open-at-the-same-time heuristic (or maybe one more pertinent to the case that started this: more than 10 open at the same time) and in the rare case that happens, look for an excessive rate. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 01:43, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

  I think that the egregious over-RfCers, such as the incidents described on this page, are obvious to everyone but themselves. Sometimes obvious things are hard to define, and I'm sorry that my first effort was so fumble-footed. I would very much welcome alternative suggestions.—S Marshall T/C 12:30, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

  When one person opens multiple RFCs in a short space of time, they're usually on similar subjects (e.g., various articles related to Electronic cigarette), and having that many open at the same time reduces participation in all of them. Ten RFCs on ecigs spread over a year is actually better than the same ten RFCs all being opened in the same month.

  Also, as a matter of enforcement, it's much easier to demonstrate that RFC/A shows ten RFCs open at the same time by one editor than to dig through every version of the page for the last year to see whether the person opened one RFC every five weeks (which would be permissible with a 10-RFC annual limit) vs every four weeks (which would not). WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:21, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

RfC moratoria?

• Sometimes opening RFCs is necessary to deal with TE, and is one of the best tools against a WP:CIRCUS. But sometimes it is indeed too much, for example Ladislav Mecir opened RFC#5 and RFC#6 simultaneous RFCs on the same subject (relating to an altame of Bitcoin Cash. Thats after 4 previous RFCs 1, [6], 3, 4 RFCs had been run on the same subject plus an ANI that resulted in WP:GS/Crypto. What if we could do an RFC to close future RFCs, unless some new material info was added? As at least in this Bitcoin Cash case, it is mostly that the editor, and often a new group of WP:SPAs show up to go over something that has been reviewed ad nauseam. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 14:41, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Thank you, Jtbobwaysf for initiating this review. Being at it, I propose all reviewers to consider this revert and compare it to WP:IBTIMES. Hope this throws some light on the issue. If that does not suffice, I can look up additional information. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 23:50, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

    The edit (removing a tag that claimed the source did not support the text) and WP:IBTIMES (stating that International Business Times is not a reliable source) have nothing to do with the post to which it is attached or this talk page section. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 01:53, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

    I respectfully disagree. The information demonstrates that to discuss the appropriateness of the purportedly reliable source (WP:IBTIMES), there was not much left except for a RfC, when a simple attempt to tag the source to dispute its appropriateness was destroyed. If that does not explain why the RfC was appropriate, then I probably miss something. On the other hand, I do agree, that the point introduced by Jtbobwaysf is not related to this talk page section, Giraffedata. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 07:35, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

I also agree we are not talking about IBTIMES here :-) How do you explain RFC #6 while RFC #5 was ongoing. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:19, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

• This is getting out of hand. The reason that multiple RfCs are being brought up is because the Bitcoin Cash page does not seem to represent the subject in an accurate manner. If you have new Wikipedia accounts coming in, that's because you didn't do your job of creating a neutral article, thus causing more people to come in and induce RfCs. It seems that Jtbobwaysf is using press releases, unreliable sources, and voting against the consensus in the RfCs he claims to be frivolous. Mazdamiata200 (talk) 06:22, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

• I don't have anything to add about cryptocurrency, which from my brief look at it appears to be very contentious, but I do agree with Jtbobwaysf when he says that it must be possible to enact a RfC moratorium. I suggest that we exapt the process for a page-move moratorium, which means that a RfC moratorium would look like this.—S Marshall T/C 12:30, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

  The usual thing is for the respondents in a later RFC to moan about how many RFCs there have already been, and for the closer to boldly pronounce a moratorium. I believe that a six-month moratorium is more common than the 30-day one you pronounced. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:17, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Curious as to how important it is to begin an RfC with a neutral statement, as suggested at WP:RFCOPEN? For example, at this RfC, I believe the opening statement contains some non-neutral language. I've asked the nom to reword it, but there has been no response. Of course, I only asked about two hours ago, so the nom may not have noticed it yet. So how important is neutrality? Is it okay to breach it under some circumstances? P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 20:23, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

User:Paine Ellsworth, do you think that experienced editors will be able to figure out what the real question is? If so, then I wouldn't worry about it too much. It usually takes more than a little non-neutrality to lead editors in a direction that they wouldn't normally go. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:46, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Why specify experienced editors? Inexperienced editors also respond to RfCs. It is difficult enough for a newbie to avoid things that experienced editors know to avoid ("I don't like it") without putting the extra burden on a non-neutral question on them. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:25, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Most RFC respondents aren't newbies, and in practice (NB I'm not saying this is good, only that it happens), their responses tend to be discounted when RFCs are summarized, especially when there is reason to believe that the inexperienced editor didn't understand the full context of the dispute. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:56, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

To editors WhatamIdoing and Guy Macon: yes there is a good reason I think to maintain complete neutrality in the first words of an RfC. After all, they're not like RMs where editors are not supposed to make bulleted support for the proposed page move. Non-neutral statements can be saved for a bulleted argument in an RfC. Yet I can see the idea of "levels of non-neutrality" and how making just one non-neutral statement in an otherwise neutral paragraph may not be so bad. That's why I brought it up here. So maybe the question should be rephrased: How important is full and complete neutrality in the opening statement of an RfC? P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 18:22, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Paine Ellsworth, I think that "moderate" neutrality is important for RFC questions. "Full and complete" neutrality in a question is probably not important, and deciding whether a question is "fully and completely" neutral has a bit of an "eye of the beholder" problem. A relatively minor problem (such as your complaint about the RFC question saying that the subject has been discussed but never resolved) is IMO unimportant. If we were going to complain about that RFC question, we'd start by saying that it's "not brief" (but there's no absolute word count to measure that against) and that it doesn't explicitly offer an option for the inconsistent status quo (which is also not required, but editors complain when they feel limited – see WT:N for another recent example of that). But would fixing these small complaints really matter in the end? I doubt it. In particular, I suspect that putting a note about the RFC at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) would have a much bigger effect than any amount of editing the RFC question (besides, if everyone agrees to the proposed change, who's going to fix this stuff if not the VPT folks?).

The community's goal in requiring neutral questions is to increase the likelihood that the response to the RFC will be an accurate representation of the community's views. We believe a neutral question is more likely to produce an accurate representation than a non-neutral question. However, in some cases, a blatantly non-neutral question can be very effective at eliciting an accurate understanding of the community's current position. As long as we do reach that point of understanding the community's position in the end, the question is probably okay. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:17, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Okay, thank you very much! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 20:34, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree with WhatamIdoing. Relatively minor problems should be ignored. But of course emotions run high during RfCs (that's often why the content dispute ended up in an RfC instead of being resolved through normal discussion) and invariably the editor who is advantaged by (or wrote) the non-neutral question thinks there are minor problems or no problems while the editor who is disadvantaged by the non-neutral question thinks that there are huge problems that invalidate the RfC, but only if they don't like the result. (Why am I thinking about US politics all of a sudden?)

So, is there an objective way to get past the opinions and decide whether a problem is minor or major? The oversimplified and best answer is "don't editorialize or assume disputed facts in the question; put that in your !vote". After that, I say look at the !votes.

To use the above example, what if the question says that the subject has been discussed but never resolved but some editors say that it was not discussed or that it was resolved? Are there multiple oppose or support comments that specifically list the subject having been discussed but never resolved as the reason? If so, we have a serious neutrality problem. Do most or all of the oppose or support comments give some other reason? Then we have a minor and unimportant neutrality issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:37, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

I'll just add my weight to this view. I find non-neutral questions quite irritating, mainly because of the character defect they evince in the requester, but people like me need to just get over that and find the objective question within rather than make a fuss about neutrality. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 02:49, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

• Imo a good question is one that (1) enables editors to identify all the points at issue; (2) links to the specific locus of dispute, with diffs wherever possible; and (3) is maximally pithy and brief within the constraints of the previous two. But I find discussions about question neutrality really helpful when I'm approaching an RfC. Any argument or edit war about the question tells me who's cross with whom about what. If you want to identify the most strongly invested disputants, attach their names to the position they hope to defend, and work out where the compromises need to be found, follow the diffs about the question.
  Imo a poor question is one that hides its context or oversimplifies the dispute.—S Marshall T/C 21:54, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

  You might appreciate the unusual pro/con formatting system at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Example formatting. Give the 'other side' equal space right after the question. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:25, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

• My 2 cents... a good RFC should start with a question, not a statement. The question should be neutrally worded. The editor who is asking the question can certainly share his/her (non-neutral) opinion on that question, but this should be placed separately from the basic question. Blueboar (talk) 22:47, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Dunno if I'm in the minority here, but I don't like seeing unsigned RFC's. I like to know exactly who created it. This is important information for judging biases and just having general information about the RFC. Is there any interest in deleting the line or ~~~~~ (just the time and date) from the instructions in our article, so that people are not encouraged to create "anonymous" RFC's with no name? (5 tildes instead of 4 tildes signs just the date) Thanks. –Novem Linguae (talk) 17:06, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Here's the last time this was discussed (3 years ago): Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Archive 15#Signature vs date stamp.

Some people were for changing the instructions to require signing. There was no consensus for or against, and an RfC to establish consensus was discussed. The conclusion was that an RfC was unnecessary, because the problem is small enough that we can accommodate the people who support unsigned RfC statements even if they are in the minority.

Incidentally, we should make sure to separate the concept of signing an RfC statement and posting an RfC anonymously. Signing is formal statement of ownership, like a byline in a newspaper. If you think you need to know who posted an RfC, you look in the page history for that, and if the poster really doesn't want responders to know who he is, he doesn't log into Wikipedia when posting. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 04:10, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

@Novem Linguae, I wonder whether you'd be interested in running User:Yair rand/UserBlind.js for a while, and seeing whether the results surprise you. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:50, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, lol. That would probably really bug me. But interesting to see that there are people that basically have the opposite belief (that every post should be anonymous). –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:40, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

There may be situations in which one is obviously better than the other. If you're going to summarize a contentious RFC, then there might be significant value in not paying attention to the editors' identities. If you're dealing with two editors who have a history of not getting along, then it's probably better to know that it's those two again. Under ordinary circumstances, I think it should be a matter of personal preference, but when you find that you are agreeing with me just because I'm me, and not because I've written the most convincing statement – well, a little experiment might help you learn if your preference is leading you in directions that you wouldn't naturally go. You can turn it on, read a discussion, make up your mind, and then turn it off and check back to see whether any of the names surprise you. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:51, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

I tend to agree with you, but in the absence of a change in the instructions, if you think a signature is being left out inappropriately then one option would be to add the {{unsigned}} template. Sunrise (talk) 02:10, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

No, Legobot handles that badly - the RfC statement needs to have a true signature/timestamp as would be produced by four or five tildes, not one emitted by {{subst:unsigned}} and similar. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:23, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Sunrise, I saw an admin delete an unsigned template from an RFC the other day. Looks like signing RFC's is a sensitive issue. –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:46, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

I have a discussion in the talk page of the Strategies for Engineered Negligible Senescence article and two editors were against my edit proposals but they didn't had much to say about what I said, each of them made only one short reply on only part of what I said and they didn't replied to my reply to them. My sources and my arguments clearly shows that the "scientific controversy" part just doesn't make sense but according to what was told to me it still isn't considered a consensus despite the fact that nobody replied to me for several months.

Someone told me to go for RfC but I don't understand exactly what it is and how I should make it. should I just write an RfC like it was shown in the example here, and than post it in the talk page of the article and wait for someone else to respond to me?. What exactly will happen next?. Will someone else just come and decide what to do or there will be a discussion and I will have a chance of convincing him/her that I am right?. --ThunderheadX (talk) 16:53, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

@ThunderheadX, an RFC is an advertised talk-page discussion. It sounds like you're addressing too many things at the same time. If you say a lot of things, and people only reply to part of what you say, then you usually need to focus on a smaller question. Remember, good Wikipedia articles are usually written over the space of years, not just a couple of days.

My advice to you is to get organized. You need to figure out how many things you want to change, and then discuss each of them separately. It might help to privately make an Outline (list) on paper or in a doc on your computer, so you know what everything is. Then you need to pick one (I recommend the smallest or least controversial – something like "Remove this single outdated sentence") and talk about just that one thing, with laser-like focus. Do not try to solve all the problems at once.

If you can pick out one change that you would like to make, then you can post it here, and we'll help you figure out how to ask that question. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:31, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

To put a finer point on it: Your actual proposal is quite simple - delete the whole section. But if you propose that, you aren't going to get a usable debate on whether the section is good or bad; you're going to get mired in discussions of compromises, where some of the section is deleted and some is kept, some is moved to other sections, and problems are fixed by rewording and adding citations.

You asked about the process, though. First, note that there is no arbitration of content on Wikipedia. Nobody is going to come in and rule on whether the sections stays or goes. You post the RfC just as you said. Then, it gets advertised like User:WhatamIdoing said, and strangers will presumably take an interest in the controversy and come and discuss it, along with those who have already been discussing it with you. All of these participants have equal voice in deciding what to do with the article. If the discussion results in a clear consensus on what to do with the article, everyone is supposed to respect that. If consensus isn't clear to everyone, you can file a request for some uninvolved editor to close and summarize the discussion, describing the consensus, if any. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Giraffedata (talk • contribs) 01:56, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Superbrands זור987 (talk) 12:47, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

• Interesting case... I find a LOT of sources talking about companies/products being listed as a “superbrand” (and I can see the argument that such coverage is an indication that the listed company/product may be notable). However, I find very few sources that discuss Superbrands as a company/organization in its own right. Thus, it may not pass the sourcing requirements laid out at WP:ORG. This raises an interesting question... Can a company issue a list that arguably confers notability on other companies while being itself non-notable? I have posted the same question on the article talk page. Blueboar (talk) 13:39, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
• @זור987: This is not the place to propose (please note the spelling) an article for deletion. The possible methods are described at WP:DELETE. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:12, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

The listing of Talk:Tom Aikens#Post-closure info must be reformatted. I must have listed two simultaneous discussions on the same talk page, resulting in one incomplete listing. I tried correcting the errors, but one is fully listed, while the other is still incomplete. George Ho (talk) 16:47, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

@George Ho: WP:RFC#Multiple RfCs on one page explicitly states

Each {{rfc}} tag should also be added in a separate edit, with a delay between each edit to let the bot assign an id number to the first before attempting to start a second.

but you went against that with this edit. It goes on with

If there are two {{rfc}} tags on the same page that both lack the |rfcid= parameter, Legobot will assign the same value to both

and this is precisely what happened, with the effects that you describe above. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:53, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

I am putting together a potentially contentious RfC for the lead image at Woman. Could I have advice for the language of the question? Proposed language:

1. Should the lead image be changed? (yes/no)
2. If yes, which of these images should we use instead? (may rank)

I would like to first establish whether there is consensus for the current lead image, and then use rank choice !voting if necessary. I have put together options but I am concerned there are still too many. I am considering just choosing one to make the RfC a simple question: "Which image should we use as the lead image?" Any advice is appreciated. Kolya Butternut (talk) 14:33, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

@Kolya Butternut, would you accept my advice to run away, as fast as possible?

If that doesn't work, then you'll want to read Talk:Woman/Archive 13.

Have you considered establishing consensus for principles before trying to select a specific image? For example: Should the image be a single woman or a group? Do we prefer a non-stereotypical depiction? Do we prefer the image to depict an occupation, rather than a social setting? If it's not okay to show a woman simply existing or engaged in a family or leisure setting, then should the occupation be representative? (Worldwide, retail sales and office work are two of the most common occupations/settings for women.) Do we prefer a particular race? (About 40% of people in the world are from the non-East-Asia parts of Asia.)

It might be hard to get people to apply a rubric, rather than picking whatever their favorite is, but it might produce a more durable outcome. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:40, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

I had initiated the discussion at Archive 13 and participated in most of the others. Principles were discussed at Talk:Woman/sandbox/Archive 2#Criteria. I took those discussions into consideration when I selected these images. Most of the photos from the portrait photographer I found on Flickr happen to be of East Asians, but I also felt that proposing photos of women of a similar race as the existing lead image would reduce conflicts over the race aspect. Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:17, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

There only seem to be a few people responding to you in that discussion, which doesn't indicate widespread consensus for the principles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:58, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Do you have advice for the RfC as it is proposed? An alternative might simply be: "Is one of these images an improvement upon the current lead image? (may rank)" Kolya Butternut (talk) 07:43, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Simple, single questions are more likely to get clear results. If you put the current image in the list, then people could vote for no change merely by ranking it as best.

Here's another idea: Years back, there was a recommendation that when lots of good images existed, it was a good idea to rotate the images through the article. (Imagine an article about a mountain, and you rotate winter–spring–summer–autumn photos through the lead with each season, rather than picking just one forever.) This was never done very often (it's a bit of work), but I wonder whether this article might be particularly well-suited for that approach. It would eliminate the problem of choosing one person to represent half of humanity. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:17, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

I do intend to list the current lead image as an option. I think rotating images would suffer the same problems as galleries where it will encourage debate over which images get included. Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:10, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Changing it to a simple, single question is probably the right way to go; thank you. Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:05, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps just: "Which of these photos is best for the lead image?" Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:24, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

That's simple enough that people will be able to answer it. You'll probably get some people complaining merely because you're trying to change the image. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:49, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Those complaints will probably not be a strong as the complaints about this image suggestion. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:33, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

(Following discussion was under section Volume, subsection Principles. I moved it because I can't see any connection to that topic and it was obscuring that discussion). Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 04:24, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I'm making this comment in the correct location but... I've sometimes been frustrated by cases where a RfC should be useful but is opened with a poor question or a poor set of response choices. I feel a period of time where the actual question could be discussed/debated would probably help in many cases and, other than delaying closing a bit would never hurt.

As a hypothetical I open a RfC regarding what desert should be served at the next Wiki-edit event. Without asking others I give the following choices: A: vanilla ice cream or B chocolate ice cream. However, at this time our actual options are wide open so we could have other flavors or deserts other than ice cream (pie, cake etc). The lack of input from others makes this a poor RfC. Would say a mandatory pre-RfC announcement/comment on the question period be useful? In a related issue, should other editors be able to edit my RfC question (change choices, expand choices, etc)? Another editor feels my choice to only suggest ice cream flavors was a deliberate effort to snub the cupcake aficionados. Can I refuse to allow people to add cupcakes to my RfC list? Editors can always suggest other options in the Survey/Discussion section but is that enough?

I've seen examples where we had good RfCs because editors who didn't agree on the topic at least discussed a reasonable list of options before the RfC was started. I've also see cases editors objected to changes because they were protective of their original question and cases where responding editors initially assume the stated choices are the only options which tends to skew the discussion in one direction. Should we have/encourage a pre-RfC discussion for say 24hr so editors can weigh in on the specific question/options? If not, should other editors be allowed to modify the RfC after the question is posed? Springee (talk) 04:22, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

@Springee, I'm interested in the tension between your two comments. On the one hand, you want to narrow down the responses and push editors to take firm, countable stands: You're either for the chocolate ice cream, or you're against it, with no waffling about details like whether that particular brand of chocolate is any good (answer: probably not, purely as a statistical matter) or trying to find a compromise (like mint chip, or vanilla ice cream with hot fudge on top). On the other hand, departing from the pre-determined choices might be the best way to find the real consensus, especially if the choices don't reflect the full range of options. Have you thought about this tension before? WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:12, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

"I feel a period of time where the actual question could be discussed/debated" - if it's a straight forward content dispute, there is no requirement for the RfC question to be discussed, the onus is on the disputing editor to properly read the question creation instructions. The reality is that BRD favors those editors with an inordinate amount of time on their hands - they can spend hours discussing, debating, objecting, sealioning, stonewalling, you name it. Personally, I would prefer if editors were quicker to move to an RfC. As soon as it becomes apparent that a content dispute exists (between more than two editors) an RfC should be engaged. Seeking wider community input, and building a broader consensus, is healthier than getting bogged down in these pointless "local" BRD based content disputes. Acousmana 11:42, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't see what you are asking to be in conflict with my comments. If there has been a true discussion prior to the RfC then it's easier to be confident in the question. However, I have seen RfCs opened with zero prior discussions. A bit of time to make sure both sides have some level of agreement on the question isn't a bad thing. Ideally that should happen before the RfC is opened. Springee (talk) 11:49, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

This is what WP:RFCBEFORE is about. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:02, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, I forgot about that section. What is the process if someone didn't bother with those steps? Springee (talk) 18:59, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Various choices. Point out RFCBEFORE; ask them to link to previous discussions; ask them to demonstrate that an impasse has been reached and that it is time to involve dozens of people from outside; ask them why they think that having no prior discussion justifies going straight to a full-blown thirty-day formal RfC; yank the {{rfc}} tag if it is already clear that they didn't bother checking. But make sure that WP:RFCBEFORE is linked at least once in your post and/or edit summary. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:30, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

...and if you're one of the "combatants", find someone else to do that last part (which only rarely needs to be done). Posting here usually works, although you will run the risk of me telling you that the people who complain about a question's neutrality usually mean "my side is losing". WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:22, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)WhatamIdoing, I don't see the tension, just a comment about what makes for a good/bad RfC question. I've found the most effective questions are relatively closed ended. Sometimes that works well. If for example, we have had a long discussion about including/excluding a specific quote or content such a closed ended RfC can be a great help. However, I've also found that some people, perhaps on purpose, narrow the RfC to include only a subset of options they would be OK with (should we describe ice cream as "too cold for winter" or "a problem for lactose intolerant editors" but no option for "a popular desert"). This is why I think some type of "what question should we ask" comment period is a good idea. If nothing else it suggests that we shouldn't endorse opening RfCs in cases where there hasn't been some reasonable level of talk page dialog first. Springee (talk) 11:45, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

The most effective question depends on what you're trying to learn. If the question is "X or not-X", then closed questions are okay. After all, either you mention that ice cream is frozen, or you don't; there's no compromise system in which you can kind of mention it and kind of not. But if the real question is more complex (e.g., "What negative aspects of ice cream should be mentioned?" or "How should we balance negative and positive views of ice cream?"), then the answers shouldn't be a simplistic vote. I would expect these questions to produce these options (e.g., seasonal preferences, lactose intolerance, popularity, etc.), not to vote on a list of options that I previously thought of.

There are different ways of defining at a "good" RFC. One view says that it's a good RFC if everyone can easily see what the result was. Simple votes are usually pretty good for this: editors are very willing to respond to easy votes, and anyone can count the votes. Another says it's a good RFC if we learn something that will help improve the page. In that model, an RFC that comes to no immediate conclusion, or that develops a compromise that the original editors never imagined, can be very successful. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:37, 14 April 2021 (UTC)