Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:57, 30 August 2008

• WT:RFC

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

Archives of WP:RFC

The most recent archive with a link at the top of this page is number 7. It only goes to mid 2007. Where are the more recent archives?

Thanks, Wanderer57 (talk) 15:56, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Fixed (finally). No one is apparently doing this task anymore. I've done archives 8 and started 9. Personally, I think this page would benefit from letting the archives be handled by a bot since no one is doing it. Thoughts? Objections? -- ] (] · ]) 02:10, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Srbosjek article

Srbosjek see talkpage

I've been waiting for a response on some issues for few months now.Anyone?--(GriffinSB) (talk) 18:53, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

China works for Germany since 1644

Chinese Paramilitary Police Exchange.

France, England & America are exchanging Chinese Paramilitary Police who are highly trained in martial arts to attack Free-Tibet protestors in Europe, England & America.

But Germany set up funds for Free-Tibet.

So Germany is earning money from the protests in Tibet, but the Bavarian Illuminati is stolen from Buddhism.

German Aristocracy is the Corrupt World Government. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phalanxpursos (talk • contribs) 15:17, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

How?

I requests for comment, at Talk:Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic II The Sith Lords, but wasn't being anything. May I fault something. --Beyond silence 17:37, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Limits of Template Procedure

I have two redundant categories; I don't give a WP:FUCK either way, but I expect strong resistance if I would try to CFD either one of them. Since there is no Misplaced Pages:Categories for making up you mind I thought an RFC seems to be the right place to talk matters through with all interested parties. However, the RFC procedure asks me to pick one place to insert the template.

Is there a way to get an RFC started without taking sides? Yes, it's a small thing, but I would not like to give up my neutrality on technical issues.

Is there a better place to have the discussion? --Yooden ☮

Forgot something: A simple WP:Merge (which I'm not even sure would work on categories) is not an option because, depending on the interpretation picked, there is a third option to make one a subcat of the other. --Yooden ☮

Manual RFC list addition option when bot goes AWOL?

Seems the bot is unreliable in the extreme, judging by the accounts here. I've tried to entice it to notice an RFC tag here for a couple of days now; no joy. How about a manual option? MeteorMaker (talk) 20:48, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, was apparently implemented already. Sorry for wasting everybody's valuable time. MeteorMaker (talk) 22:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Merging in editor review

I have proposed merging editor review with RfC. Comments and opinions are welcome. Vassyana (talk) 22:52, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

"RFC error" template inserted; not clear why

Why did the RFC bot make this change from "{{RFCsci |section= RfC: Effectiveness of chiropractic care !! Is ]'s discussion of effectiveness biased? If so, what should it be replaced with? !! time=08:36, 24 April 2008 (UTC)}}" to "{{RFC error}}? I don't see anything wrong with that use of RFCsci. Eubulides (talk) 09:08, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

See User talk:Messedrocker for help with that bot. MBisanz 09:15, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Extremely shabby instructions

Is this template and this process supposed to be used at all? If yes, then improve the instructions. If no, please, remove it altogether, or put a defunct notice or something. This instruction advises to "Add {{RFCsoc| section=section name !! reason=a short summary of the discussion !! time= ~~~~~ }}", while this instruction advises to "Add {{templatename| section=section name !! reason=a short summary of the discussion !! time= ~~~~~ }}". Finally, this set of instruction is good enough to give anyone a headache. Make it lucid, make it user-friendly. Pleeeease. Misplaced Pages is not edited only by techno-savvy super-geeks who may know much about bots and codes and such stuff and very little on the article entries.Sorry for the rant. But, that's really how I feel about this infernal set of instructions. Pfui. Aditya 04:43, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Bot hasn't added rfc to the list of articles yet

I added a rfc to the homeschooling and List of homeschoolees pages, but the bot hasn't added them to the list yet. Is there usually a delay, or did I do it incorrectly? Amillion (talk) 23:11, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Bumble Bee ,descriptions of nest,etc.

Hello

Looking up data of Bumblebee's I was disapointed in the description of nest ,etc. It took me 20 minutes and another Instructor at Rio Hondo College (Whittier,Ca.) to give W. this new information that ought to be added!I have a nest in the backyard a few feet from where I sit. The Bumble bee's create holes in the trunks for,"nest" and they can make a clean perfect hole to enter/exit. I was quite suprized that a tree trunk was not in the W. Dictionairy listing such. It is not confirmed if it is a red pepper tree or not yet it is suprizing how the bumbee's capitolize the nest.The amount of wood chips(sawdust) from there excavating are used as ,"wings" above and below the entry/exit whole,I can only surmise there are for cooling. Bumblebees are amazing creatures and it feels good to keep the nest going. I had one (black) bumble bee hover in front of me less than a foot away in what seemd like it was checking me out when I began to sit near the nest. I did not move yet I looked at the Bee and felt,"I would be quite displeased if I was stung! I agree with the social part of the definetion. I hope you can add tree trunks for nest. Thank you & have a good day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.233.58.100 (talk) 20:08, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

User:RFC bot is down?

The contribution list shows many days between runs. The last run was 01:28 UTC on 7 May. Perhaps someone who knows about the bot might give be kind enough to give it a look? EdJohnston (talk)

Please someone fix this

Talk:Eight Belles. The bot did something and I have no idea how to fix the template. Thanks. JohnClarknew (talk) 21:40, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

The dispute is now resolved, so ignore this, and thanks. JohnClarknew (talk) 08:24, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

possible RFC template problem

I've been attempting an RFC from Talk:Satellite High School. The template creates information nicely, but several attempts by the bot to process the request have failed. It would be nice if there were more of a positive connection between the request and the bot - that is, if the template appears to work, the bot has no trouble with the info. I realize this is simpler than it sounds!  :) Student7 (talk) 15:30, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Not showing up on list

http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Anti-Americanism#RFC:_Degeneracy_Thesis Life.temp (talk) 20:24, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

This is till not working. Can somebody fix it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Life.temp (talk • contribs) 02:44, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I did a few minor things to try and fix. Bot should pick it up on the next run. If it revisits and throws an error again, come update here. -- ] (] · ]) 02:54, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Life.temp (talk • contribs) 03:16, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

RFC bot messed up Chiropractic entry in RFCsci list

This change to Talk:Chiropractic induced this bogus change to Template:RFCsci list. The latter change is bogus because it has:

It is my opinion that [http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title

where it should have had:

It is my opinion that was for the better. Please give your opinion on the matter.

Evidently the bot mishandles "=" in the reason. I repaired the bug in the template by hand but expect that the bot bug will undo the repair. Can this bot bug be fixed, please? (I'll leave a note on User talk:Messedrocker.) Eubulides (talk) 22:38, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

{{RFC tagging instructions}}, transcluded onto all the lists, states that ! and = cannot be used outside the context of tag structure. MessedRocker (talk) 18:53, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Link Error, Active RfCs by topic area

in the Active RfCs by topic area box in the Instructions area, the watch links point to the template page rather than the actual RFC page. I'll fix this myself if no one else does; I'm just hesitating (and commenting) because there may be some arcane wiki thing going on here that I don't know about, and don't want to mess up.  :-) --Ludwigs2 (talk) 19:16, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

WTH

The RFCBot keeps rejecting this:

== Trivia and unnecessary repetition ==
{{RFCbio | section=Trivia and unnecessary repetition !! Repetition in recent edits !! time=18:08, 30 May 2008 (UTC) }}

Can someone tell me what the heck is wrong with it? Or if the problem is with the bot, how do I get it to go 'way and lee' me alone? RedSpruce (talk) 20:07, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

the only things I can see that vary from the template are (a) you have a space after 'RFCbio' (wiki's can be picky) (b) you don't have 'reason=' before 'Repetition in recent edits'. --Ludwigs2 (talk) 21:55, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Problems

I'm trying to start a RFC at Talk:Miss Universe 2008. I can't figure out whether the template just isn't working properly, or whether its supposed to render how it has (I've never used this process before). Can someone help me out by checking it? Cheers. PageantUpdater talk • contribs 10:26, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Appeal - please help

It is high time that the abuses against the unjustly banned user "Gibraltarian" were dealt with rationally and fairly. My ban was brought about by a troll user's malicious complaint, and he continually vandalised any words I tried to post in my defence. I appeal to any admin or Arbcom member with a sense of justice to please contact me on a_gibraltarian@hotmail.com to discuss the matter. Many thanks

DO NOT REVERT.

Please go to WP:APB for instructions on appealing your block to the arbitration committee or the community. --Thinboy00's sockpuppet alternate account 23:40, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Template problem at Talk:Alan_Hovhaness#Discrimination_against_Armenians_in_Somerville

I'm trying to get an RFC listed. I've used

{{RFCbio| section=Discrimination against Armenians in Somerville !! An editor says Hovhaness's neighbors told them that the family moved from Somerville to Arlington because they felt there was discrimination against Armenians in Somerville at that time. How can this interesting information be included in the article? !! time= ~~~~~}}

but I keep getting the template replaced with an error message from the RFC bot. I can't see what's wrong with the template and the error message offers no clues. Originally the section title was enclosed in quotation marks, and I thought that might be the problem and removed them, but still no joy. What am I missing? Dpbsmith (talk) 10:23, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Closing request

This RfC has been open for over a month with nothing of substance added after the first week. I therefore kindly ask for the procedure to be closed and archived. Guido den Broeder (talk) 23:12, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Probably wrong place for this request if I understand the box at top of this page :-) Instead see Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment#Ending RfCs - seems a RfC gets automatically closed one month after last activity by the RfC bot (whatever that is). David Ruben 22:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

However User:RFC bot gives no further details, so could someone familar with the bot help clarify the vague explanation as to RfC closure/archiving :-) David Ruben 22:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

RfC/U and evidence - policy suggestions

This is a policy suggestion (apologies for its length). For sometime RfC/Us have tended towards referendums on the persons behind the accounts rather than being a case about proven on-wiki user conduct issues as evidenced by diffs. This has "divided the community" by hosting unprovabale personalized arguments. This not what wikipedia is for. It is also discrediting the RfC process.

Even if 2 editors (or 3 or 4) agree there is a problem with another user but don't provide evidence proving there is a substantive case to answer the RfC/U will look, to an uninvolved user, like it is made in bad faith.

For the sake of the RfC/U cases themselves and for the sake of this process's future we need to set hard parameters for all RfC/U comments and cases. The suggestions below are not (as far as I'm aware) novel ones. We already successfully implement stricter versions of these suggestions for Checkuser requests.

1. Evidence must clearly demonstrate policy violations without interpretation - evidence needing interpretation should be sent to ArbCom (especially in relation to misuse of sources).
2. Some method of measuring RfC/U evidence needs to be put in place before an RfC is accepted. RfC/Us are covered by WP:AGF and WP:NPA. When diffs are clearly mis-interpreted by those bringing a case the RfC looks like it is being filed in bad faith - even if a plurality of users endorse it WP:ILIKEIT already explains that that is not good enough. (However we do need to strike a balance here so that it does not create undue instruction creep.)
3. Some sanction for spurious (rather than inadequately evidenced) RfC/Us should be enforced. Spurious and pointy use of this process are disruptive and bad faith acts. I'd suggest an Immediate level 4 template for "disruptive use of the RfC process" cover by the policies of WP:AGF and WP:POINT.
4. As with my first suggestion we should have clear guidance whether off-wiki matters may be discussed here. As I understand previous ArbCom rulings they will look at things like this. However I would suggest due to copy-right issues around releasing emails; due to the complicated relationship of this project with sites about it; and considering ArbCom's explicit wish that evidence of off-site meat-puppetry be passed on to them directly, that RfC/U is not a venue for these issues.
5. Nemo contra factum suum venire ("No man can contradict his own deed"). Tendentious defense is tendentious editing. When a diff clearly and unambiguously shows an editor being incivil, flamebaiting, soapboxing, vandalizing, lying, etc, then they should not defend the indefensible. Admittedly it has become a rarity to see unambiguous diffs at RfC/U but when that is the case some measure should be taken to prevent ... trolling.

Basically I'd suggest that some sort of uninvolved clerk/admin roster should be set-up to patrol RfCs (to check evidence and enforce WP:CIVIL on them). Secondly, after two users have endorsed an RfC the evidence should be checked before it is fully opened and accepted - a checking period should be introduced. Thirdly sanctions (warnings issued only by the rostered RfC-admins and clerks) should be created and explained clearly on the RfC page.

We take matters of privacy seriously at RFCU - it already has a clearly defined set of parameters for when a check can take place. Since AGF is one of the 5 pillars of this project we should take it seriously too. Perhaps only time can heal the divide within the community but we can certainly reduce the level of pointy and personalized RfC/Us by setting parameters for what and how RfC/Us can take place. This would achieve two things: a) it should improve RfCs by making sure there is evidence for them; and b) it will reduce the poisonous atmosphere created by inappropriate (and inappropriate use of) RfC/Us. WP:RFC is part of dispute resolution not dispute escalation.

These suggestions are not prefect - I don't assume that I can solve all the community's problems or the processes problems with these ideas - so if anyone has any thoughts on these suggestions please comment--Cailil 13:33, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to suggest an additional point. On the receiving end of an RfC/U, it has troubled me greatly that commenting users tend to make a lot of assumptions (good and bad faith alike) about the user's motivations and thoughts. It seems to me that this is not very helpful. The user is a human being, so why don't commenting users ask questions instead? Isn't a better understanding of each other key to getting along better? Guido den Broeder (talk) 14:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Request

I have been recommended to leave a note here, concerning my urgent request here: . Thank you in advance for the trouble. --BF 19:20, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Nationality in Biographies of Living Persons

A couple of comments on a biography of a living person have caused me concern. The editor in question thinks it is acceptable to add a nationality to an article, where the only information available is a place of birth. I fundamentally disagree and think this is a very sloppy practise. A place of birth does not define nationality, if that is all the source says that is all that should go into the article. In response to adding a {{fact}} tag, the same editor removed it as "when there is something at the top of the page saying the whole article is unreferenced" there is no need to add one. Is this acceptable practise? Looking through guidance I can find nothing to say that it is. I thought I would ask for comments informally before starting an RFC. Justin talk 11:57, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, I would find no argument with the idea that it's not needed but it's good to add. It seems particularly unhelpful to remove such tags: That puts the burden of checking for the top-level tag on you, so that you may add the {{fact}} tag after the top-level one is removed, if it ever IS removed. Better to allow people like you to add those tags as they notice the need. Jmacwiki (talk) 01:55, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Need a cold fusion on RfCsci

There is a second cold fusion RfC that needs to be included on the RfCsci template. Thanks. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:49, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: Neuroplasticity and Irrelevant Links

I've been trying to add a topic to this list but it hasn't shown up. I see that others have this problem as well. I've never used the template before, but I believe that I have used it correctly. Please, if you will, check the bottom of the discussion on the Neuroplasticity page and add it to this list. I sincerely believe that one of the authors has added something irrelevant (The Tetris Effect), since it appears nowhere in the scientific literature on the subject. I believe that he has a theory about its relevance, unsupported by scientific study. Theories have their place, but not on this page. Thank you.23:53, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Bot malfunction? on RfC at Tucker Max#Criticism

The initial RfC tag was done improperly, and RfCBot made an edit on the page saying so. The tag was fixed, but RfCBot has not been back to the article to explain any further problems with the tag nor added it to the RfC Bio list. 03:24, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

for some reason, the bot is referring the RfC link to a previous RfC and not the current one. the current RfC is at the bottom of the page and involves whether an anonymous blog constitutes a valid source. can anyone offer some advice? Theserialcomma (talk) 23:30, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

RFC not picked up

Hi. My rfc for Talk:Evolution_as_theory_and_fact does not seem to have been picked up by the bot. --Ezra Wax (talk) 22:56, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

What to do about an unlisted user-conduct RfC?

I don't know the procedure, but I see that Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Fowler&fowler‎ is not listed at WP:RfC/USER. Can somebody with experience in these matters please do what's necessary? -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 15:39, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

• It's just a matter of putting it under the candidate section. I did so just now. --C S (talk) 23:49, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Style RFC not getting listed

I added an RFC tag to Template talk:Nobel icon nearly 24 hours ago and it has not yet been listed at Template:RFCstyle list. Did I do something wrong? Thanks, --Clubjuggle /C 15:32, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

See User:MessedRocker. MBisanz 12:16, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Am I looking for anything specific that's already on that page, or do you mean that's where I should look for an answer? Thanks, --Clubjuggle /C 15:47, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

He's the guy who runs the bot who lists the RFCs. MBisanz 15:48, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I've posted there as well but also posted here in case someone saw an obvious problem with my listing, or knew a way to get the issue listed in the meantime. Thanks, ----Clubjuggle /C 15:49, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

My edits to RfC/U

A little while ago I made a couple edits to the RfC/U page that were reverted due to no discussion taking place. It seemed fair enough, so I'm posting here to explain the edits. The first thing was to put myself as an RfC/U Coordinator. I have basically been handling the cases for a few weeks now, and it seemed that users have started accepting me as the go-to guy for matters regarding these. As a result I thought I would make it official. Secondly, I tried merging the admin pages. This stems from the Elonka RfC, which had a little bit of administrative issues involved, but 95% of it was editorial. I figured maybe it would be easier to just combine the two, but that would certainly be something to discuss. Wizardman 02:19, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind having a contact person for this sort of thing, in other venues like wikiprojects it seems very useful, so thanks for volunteering. I do think there should be some difference between Admin and non-Admin RfCs, just because the type of behavior and the range of remedies requested, will vary greatly and predictably. MBisanz 02:21, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there's a need for an RfC/U "co-ordinator"; all actions, including deletion of uncertified RfC's and archiving of closed RfC's, should be done by consensus rather than an individual, and to suggest an appointed individual has decision-making power over these would be incorrect and lead to disruption. Furthermore, the merging of admins and users is not a good move, in my opinion, as they address distinct issues and proceed in very different manners. If there's overlap, it should be filed in the admins section, especially when a core issue is the administrative application of arbitration remedies. Daniel (talk) 02:23, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

My major concern is you appointing yourself RFC/U coordinator. You can't just do that. One person shouldn't oversee RFC/U - it will mean that we only get one interpretation of a result of an RfC. I like the idea of a committee of users who close RfC's and judge the consensus of them, but that's for more than one person, and not decided by someone who edits the pages a lot. If I'm being honest, I'd like to see people who do more work deciphering the RfC's and stating clearly what the RfC shows on closure, rather than someone who simply closes the RfC and make things look tidy. Ryan Postlethwaite 02:24, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree. We have too many Coordinators already. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:40, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't care if Wizardman is "coordinator" or not. It doesn't give him any more or less ability or "power" than he (or anyone else) already has. Though I can see the benefit of having him list himself as someone to "goto" concerning this process. (Do we have any other volunteers?)

As for merging, the problem for me is that unless the concerns involve "the tools" or associated responsibilities, then admins should be listed under the editor sections (an admin being "just another editor"). If it does involve the above, then I think that that should indeed be listed separately. - jc37 07:50, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

• As it is, multiple editors (including myself), as well as administrators assist in managing the page, and RFC/U in general (and each of those users have been contacted in the same way - it doesn't mean we make drastic moves to become RFC coordinators or have extra authority). Frequently enforcing already existing norms, whether it's formatting, archiving, guidelines etc. probably only gives rise to the mere title as "an RFC regular" - nothing more. On the other issue, there are reasons why admin and editor RFCs and bots are kept separate - those reasons still carry the same level of weight and have not been eliminated, so there should be no change to the current format of the RFC/U page. Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:25, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll drop the merge discussion, since after sleeping on it I realized it was a stupid idea. As for a coordinator or something, if not me then I at least think there should be some sort of body that handles it, else the Alastair Haines case may still be stuck in RfC instead of at RFAR. Wizardman 21:05, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Not quite - the parties knew where to go next, when to consider going there etc., and the RFC should've concluded and been archived upon the RFAR being accepted, or upon a sanction being imposed by an admin or the community (on conduct that even remotely touches on the concerns at the RFC) because that's how it's been done to date. I've mostly agreed with your conclusion or closing/archiving to an extent - but always keep in mind that ample time should be given for outside input, even if it's a month since the last endorse in the RFC. That didn't quite happen in the Haines RFC, but in a clear case like that, it didn't need to wait so much either. Ncmvocalist (talk) 00:54, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

A good point. I've noticed that about 95% of the comments tend to come within the first week or two, and after that there's only a little bit more that's generally added, hence why my closes probably appear to be quick. Wizardman 01:44, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't agree with that percentage, but certainly I'd say 'a lot'. The desired level of outside input can arrive up to 2 months after the RFC has been opened to be sure about the consensus. Anyway, whenever there are objections, there'd be reverts and/or modifications I think, so as long as you note them for the future, there's no worries. :) (And of course, there've been none so far on that.) Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:54, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion for improvement

What I'd like to see is a group of admins who are familiar with the process volunteering to oversee things. People complain that RFC/U has no teeth - well, I'd like to see the group of volunteering admins judging the consensus about what the RfC actually says and state it clearly to the user who's conduct is questioned. They make it clear what the consensus is saying at the top of the page, and inform the user in question of the findings of the RfC. If the consensus is that the user in question has not done anything wrong, then they also say that. It'd be more like an AfD style RfC, with firm decisions made from them (obviously without the time frame however). It's important that the person closing the RfC states what the community find problematic about the behaviour, and what changes the community would like to see in the users editing - they obviously can't enforce this though, and if the user were to carry on the problematic behaviour, ArbCom or the community could deal with it using sanctions. Ryan Postlethwaite 16:44, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Conditional support - free-for-alls must not be made. Sceptre 16:48, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

They wouldn't - they'd be closed out propoerly and the true consensus gained. In the case of Elonka (which I sure is the reason why you're upset at the minute), this would probably closed out as a clear consensus that she did nothing wrong (although it would probably run a little longer). Ryan Postlethwaite 16:53, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not actually upset - you're assuming I am. The MFD nomination and the subsequent disputed tag was only partially influenced by Elonka's RFC. Seeing as no progress has been made to improve RFC/U since its last MFD nomination, I was contemplating another round soon. The spiral Elonka's RFC has gone down only accelerated the wait, and it's only poor timing it was nominated now. Sceptre 17:01, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, as I said - I hope a new "system" like I suggested would put improve the whole process a lot, and the problems with the Elonka RfC would be fixed by that. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:05, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Anything that replaces this system would be better: possible harm beats definite harm any day. Sceptre 17:07, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Procedural note: The use of MfD in the past to rid the project of certain features, while at times effective, was not the best course of action. MfD is for deletion discussions regarding certain project-space pages. There is no need to delete RfC/U or RfC when there are other options available (deprecating them / marking them {{historical}}). All of which can be accomplished through talk page discussion, village pump discussion, or perhaps an RfC. But MfD is not an appropriate forum, despite its history. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:15, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Links to prior MfDs please

I expected to find them at the top of the page. --Ronz (talk) 16:30, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind. --Ronz (talk) 20:01, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

RFC/U disputed, again

Seeing as MFD is (to my surprise, given the amount of times process has been nominated there before) the incorrect forum for getting rid of a process:

I am renominating this process page for deletion/historicalisation because the instructions left by the closer of the MFD nine months ago have not been followed. Because the page details a process, and not a policy or guideline, it cannot qualify for the use of {{disputedtag}}, and as such MFD is used per precedent for processes such as the CSN and Esperanza.

El C, in closing, noted that RFC/U is problematic through its lack of enforcement, but also noted that the lack of RFC would cause ANI to become slightly busier. He also urged the community to reform the process and discount any superfluous RFCs - neither of which, have not happened: for the former, requests for remedies was proposed as a sanction-carrying alternative to RFC/U, and was rejected; for the latter, several recent RFCs (one including myself) were filed with lack of proper certification but was still kept.

Perhaps the most worrying thing about the process is that one of its creators, User:Jdforrester, admitted that it's gone downhill from his concept into a "hate-fest free-for-all" and hardly resolves disputes, and subsequently supported archival. An example of this is Elonka's current RFC, which I made a similar comment that it's "gone from what may have been a valid dispute into an ugly incivility-creating free-for-all focusing on anything Elonka may have done wrong ever".

Nine months down the line, nothing has been done to improve the process, despite repeated urgings by several admins. Thus, I support the disuse of the process as a really bad idea. Sceptre 16:44, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

See above section "#Suggestion for improvement" - I'm hoping this could help the process a lot. Ryan Postlethwaite 16:46, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

RFC/U does have lack of enforcement and judgment, but that's exactly what's been trying to get fixed recently. If one's gonna pick a time to MfD or tag this, this isn't the time. Wizardman 20:49, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Template system disables listing RFCs in more than one subject area?

This seems to be a pretty serious flaw in this template system? Articles were always allowed to be listed in more than one subject area, and ought to be in order to attract discussants from relevant topics. For what reason should they not? —Centrx→talk • 05:33, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

RfC not showing up

Hello, I did an {{RFCsci list}} at both Talk:Eurasian otter#RfC regarding common name & Talk:European Badger#RfC regarding common name, but Eurasian otter is not showing up on the RfC list. Would someone please fix whatever I did to screw it up. Rgrds. --Tombstone (talk) 12:34, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Second request = Can someone please fix my screw up so Talk:Eurasian otter#RfC regarding common name shows up on the RfC page. I cannot see what I did wrong with the template. Rgrds. --Tombstone (talk) 14:28, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

 Done. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:22, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

RFC disappeared

I placed an RFC (for RFCpol) on the Talk:John Michell (writer) page. This can be read in this edit. It went through successfully and appeared on the RFCpol page, as evidenced here. Unfortunately, subsequent edits have caused the RFC to disappear altogether from the RFCpol page, and a notice to appear on the disputed Talk:John Michell (writer) page stating that "A user has requested comment on this page, but there is an error in the RFC template."

The edit in which I posted four points in an effort to establish verifiability have also disappeared. Please could someone intervene to reinstate the RFC, so that discussion can begin, outside of the context of an edit war - thanks. The text of the RFC is neutral, and states: "There is a dispute about whether or not to include a request on the Discussion page for full bibliographical details of the pamphlet The Hip-Pocket Hitler, authored by John Michell; and whether or how to mention his relationship with the fascist philosophy of author Julius Evola. An edit war has broken out, and comments are requested." If someone wishes to assert that Michell's relationship with Evola is as a non-fascist who simply wrote a non-supportive essay for publication in the first (deluxe and limited-run) English edition of Evola's work Men Among the Ruins, and who shares both a small-press publisher and a political label with Evola ('Radical Traditionalist'), and that nothing more is reasonably sayable about the relationship, even despite Michell's authorship of The Hip-Pocket Hitler, they are perfectly entitled to do so. However there is surely no good reason to remove the RFC, part of the purpose of which is precisely to elicit such comments (as well as from those who might then reasonably point out that Michell's introduction to Evola was very highly supportive), should anyone care to make them. A reasonable request for discussion should, if the system is to work properly, initiate a reasonable discussion. Let the process begin! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.84.204.125 (talk) 07:11, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

User 'SageMab' keeps fiddling with the RFC posted on the said Talk page. Please could someone do something about this, e.g. issue a temporary block while the RFC receives comments - thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.84.204.125 (talk) 16:09, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Please post this at WP:HD or WP:AN instead of here. MBisanz 16:12, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

RfC not coming up

I set up last night an RfC for Mike Comrie at Talk:Mike Comrie#RfC: Neutrality of edits, but it's not showing up... can someone take a look at it and figure out what I've done wrong here? Tabercil (talk) 17:50, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

• Second request... can someone please take a look and set the RfC up right? Tabercil (talk) 01:10, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Also not coming up for ENom; originally added 22 Aug and re-added 23 Aug when first placement didn't "take". Thirdbeach (talk) 20:25, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

eNom now appears on the RfC list, but Mike Comrie does not (and nobody has gotten back to me to say they've intervened manually). Still looks to me like a problem with the bot code. Thirdbeach (talk) 19:58, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Failed RfC/U: What's next?

What happens if agreements can't be found in an RfC/U such as this one?

We have an agenda-driven editor (author of a self-published book on a novel medical idea). He is barred from editing articles on the subject of his book because of COI (it only took two or three COINs and a promised from an admin to block him for any further violation). The editor refuses to edit in semi-related or unrelated areas (possibly because his "improvements" get promptly reverted), and is making a pest of himself on his favorite article's talk page and his user talk page (currently featuring an essay on "The Motivations, Strategies, and Tactics of my Critics", which prompted this RfC/U). His latest schtick is that I'm clearly a biased editor because I refused his demands to demonstrate my editing standards in an article of his choosing. (I recently topped 20,000 edits (per preferences); I think I've got enough of a track record that anyone could figure out what my normal article standards are, but he insists that none of the hundreds of articles I've previously worked on will do.)

We are not going to reach a consensus here. I don't believe he's able to grasp the basics of collaborative efforts or will ever understand how disruptive he is. But I don't know what happens next, and there's no information on this page.

A successful RfC/U should end with a custom-tailored agreement that the subject understands and that everyone can live with. But what do you do at the end of a failed RfC/U? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:28, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Haven't looked at the RFC in question, but if the concerns are found to be legitimate by third party users, then it's likely you need to present the problem either to the community (WP:ANI or WP:AN) or to ArbCom WP:RFArb to take binding action. Ncmvocalist (talk) 00:26, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Despite WP:RFC#Ending RfCs, an RfC/U has to be closed manually, correct? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:13, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Correct, and it should be by an uninvolved party. MBisanz 19:20, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Thus? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:39, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Sure. MBisanz 20:54, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

RfC listing procedure is troublesome

Lots of people fail to use the template correctly, it appears. I have no idea. I put a template RFCsci on Talk:Wilderness Diarrhea and it appears there correctly but not on the list. What am I doing wrong. Why is this such a common problem?Calamitybrook (talk) 20:52, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

It did not work because you did not follow the instructions. Instead of typing |section=RFC Wilderness Diarrhea , you typed |Wilderness Diarrhea=full article. Let me suggest that you look closely at the example given on this page and try again.

Alternatively, you can post a note at a related WikiProject, such as WikiProject Medicine, Disaster management, or Backpacking. A questions at any of those projects might actually be more appropriate than an RfC on the whole article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:54, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

The current listing procedure is pointless. We should be posting RfCs manually, and taking them down manually. That way they would show up on watchlists, and people would be forced to glance over the existing ones periodically. The bot doesn't add any value. II | (t - c) 23:57, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Start? That was the old method. I do think it worked better... GRBerry 00:04, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

So you think it would work better if it involved multiple end-user steps, like setting up an AfD? (Paste this template into the article. Click here. Edit the page name manually if it's the second AfD. Write a description. Use this edit summary. Click someplace else. Paste a different template. Use this other edit summary...)

The existing RfC system works fine for me, and I don't think that a manual system is likely to improve matters. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:57, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Listing in more than one subject area

Since no one responded to this problem with the template system, and the old system was simple and worked well, I am going to revert to the old system without the templates. —Centrx→talk • 15:56, 29 August 2008 (UTC)