Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment

	A Wikipedia ad has been created for this project page. Click [show] to view it.
Wikipedia ads file info – #17

Archives
For why RfC was created, see: Dispute resolution/Archive 1#Requests for comment Feb 2004 Feb 2004–May 2005 May 2005–Sep 2005 Sep 2005–Oct 2005 Oct 2005–May 2006 May 2006–Dec 2006 Jan 2007–Jun 2007 July 2007–Dec 2007 Jan 2008-Feb 2009 Feb 2009-Feb 2010 Feb 2010-January 2012 January 2012—May 2013 May 2013–August 2015 August 2015–October 2016 October 2016–June 2018 June 2018–
Threads older than 40 days may be automatically archived by MiszaBot II.

I want to create an RfC for the "Strategies for Engineered Negligible Senescence" article

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 Then you need to pick one (I recommend the smallest or least controversial – something like "Remove this single outdated sentence") and talk about just that one thing, with laser-like focus.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)

Purposing of the article Superbrands for deletion

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)

Advice for Woman lead image RfC

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)

Reformatting of one listing needed

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)

Volume problems

Talk:Malassezia#RfC: Malassezia: D/SD is the first of four RFCs on that page, all opened by the same person in a single edit. The bot can't handle that (in a single edit), and opening multiple RFCs (no matter how many edits) usually makes people angry, especially if all of the RFCs are about questions that have been asked and answered in multiple discussions already, but nobody agreed with me, so I'm starting a pile of RFCs in the hope that one of them will produce the outcome I want. This wasn't a problem back in the day, but we're seeing it several times a year now.

In January, @SMcCandlish added "It is rarely appropriate for a user to have more than one RfC open at a time. If any RfC that you started has not yet been closed, please do not start another one." This has been reverted. I'd like to see something like this added. I like the "please do not" feel, and I think that is preferable to an absolute ban. However, I think this restriction is too narrow. Maybe you can have a total of three open RFCs at a time? Or maybe you can open an unlimited number overall, but only one or two RFCs on any given subject?

The problems to be solved are:

• Wasting the community's time and energy on unnecessary duplicates
• Avoiding contradictory results (what if my RFC at the article's talk page says "yes", but my RFC at the WikiProject's page says "no"?)
• Fair allocation of community's time and energy to RFCs by many editors, rather than having one or two get an unfair amount of attention (if I open 10 RFCs, and 10 editors each open one RFC, then I'm just 9% of the editors opening RFCs but I'm taking up 50% of the room.)
• Preventing survey fatigue

Can we move forward on this, with at least a suggestion that it's a bad idea? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:28, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

• The "problems" are virtually non-existent not that serious: there is only one entry in relation to Talk:Malassezia#RfC: Malassezia: D/SD in respective category and there is only one discussion per RfC - no duplicates. Any limitations are counterproductive and detriment for the purposes of WP:DISPUTE resolution to say nothing of that they would be abused and mishandled. The more RfC per every proposal = the better. I'm going to fix malfunctioned RfC later so there will be more entries. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 22:28, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

  Look at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Maths, science, and technology. Tell me where your four RFCs are on that page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:48, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

• Those are all problems worth addressing (though not necessarily problems evidenced in the example batch of RfCs), but limiting the number of simultaneously open RfCs encylopedia-wide doesn't directly address any of them.

Wasting the community's time on duplicate RfCs would be addressed by a rule like you can't open two requests for comments on the same thing (I mean requests for the same comments, not just the same broad topic) in a 6 month period.

Avoiding contradictory results would be addressed by a rule like you can't have two RfCs that overlap (where the result of one would affect the result of another) open at the same time.

Fair allocation of commenter attention would be addressed by a rule like you can't open more than 12 RfCs per year. One could choose to take his limit all in January or get constant low-level attention all year.

Survey fatigue is addressed somewhat by the above, but could also be addressed by a tighter per-page limit since some commenters will be followers of the particular page.

Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 23:48, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

@Giraffedata: It's simply redundant to introduce any limitations here. Except of perceived "issues" (usually makes people angry) there is none real actually. Whole series of policies already deal with repeated and persistent attempts to change obviously stable, comprehensive WP:CONSENSUS/WP:SILENCE. I strongly oppose imposing any limitations here or elsewhere on the dispute-resolution process. I suspect that WhatamIdoing is trying to criminalize such process in order to hinder other's progress and have a convenient excuse to avoid cooperating in articles' building efforts. --AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 08:50, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

There's so much bad-faith assumption in that post that in and of itself it's worthyq of a block or topic ban.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:24, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

• I would, perhaps obviously, support reinstating the wording I originally used, or something very similar to it: "It is rarely appropriate for a user to have more than one RfC open at a time. If any RfC that you started has not yet been closed, please do not start another one." It could perhaps be moderated to something more like: "It is rarely appropriate for a user to have more than one RfC open at a time in the same topic area. If the RfC that you started has not yet been closed, please do not start another one." It wasn't really meant to imply that you shouldn't start an RfC about DUE weight in coverage of ancient writers' views of the Celts versus views of modern scholarship, if two weeks ago you already opened an RfC about infobox parameters pertaining to cattle breeds and that RfC hasn't closed.  :-) But we do have an actual problem with both too much of an WP:ANRFC backlog (always), and PoV pushers with poor collaboration and communication skills opening RfC after RfC after RfC to try to WP:WIN by tiring out their opposition and, usually, using non-neutral wording in the half-assed RfCs to try to sway random-editor opinion in their direction.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:13, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

  This basically would be used to prevent everyone from peacefully discussing different issues in separate RfCs and otherwise moving discussions forward. Makes no sense.--AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 12:47, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

  You seem to be ignoring the real disruption that this sort of gaming the system causes. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:05, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

  @Guy Macon: Feel free to enlighten me. I also don't get why not to fix bots instead of rules.--AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 18:00, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

  The problem with the bot is minor: if you want to start four separate RFCs on the same page, then you need to make four separate edits. The instructions are on this page at Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Multiple RfCs on one page.

  The social and community problems of an editor starting multiple RFCs cannot be fixed by changing the bot. I'm more concerned about the social and community problems. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:52, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

  @WhatamIdoing: Well I didn't expect that the bot would fail so miserably. Nobody was harmed at least. --AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 20:59, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

• Some points in relation to various comments above.
  @Alexander Davronov: The "problems" are virtually non-existent: there is only one entry There is indeed only one entry: but there should have been four - one for each of the {{rfc}} tags on the page, they were all added by yourself in this edit. I'm going to fix malfunctioned RfC later so there will be more entries - I see no evidence of you doing that. It has taken me over two hours to fix the page so that all four are listed at WP:RFC/SCI and WP:RFC/PROJ - and this is the second time in a few days that I've had to sort out a mess like that, the first being at Talk:Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory which had no less than six RfCs started simultaneously, see this post. I didn't expect that the bot would fail so miserably - there is a warning at WP:RFC#Multiple RfCs on one page (If there are two {{rfc}} tags on the same page that both lack the |rfcid= parameter, Legobot will assign the same value to both, with the result that only the lowest one of the page will be publicised; moreover, the incoming link will lead to the higher RfC question, which will cause confusion.). Maybe I should typeset it using big red letters.
  @Giraffedata: the problem of only one of the four being listed is not due to one user opening more than one RfC, it's that one page had more than one RfC that hadn't been visited by Legobot. Legobot has a bug in that if it encounters two or more {{rfc}} tags on the same page that all lack a |rfcid= parameter, it will assign the same rfcid value to all of them, as demonstrated by this edit. This is a known bug, and since it has a known workaround (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), Legoktm is unwilling to write a fix for that bug.
  @WhatamIdoing: if you want to start four separate RFCs on the same page, then you need to make four separate edits - not just four separate edits, but four separate edits with Legobot visiting the page between any two of them. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:28, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

  @Redrose64, if you think that big red letters would save you that much work, then I've got no objection. It's kinder than the blink tags I've considered over at Wikipedia:External links, where people still keep asking about how to format citations. Maybe something like If you start more than one RFC on the same page at the same time, the bot will only list one of them. would get the point across? And perhaps we should add "If you start more than one RFC at a time, any editor is allowed to remove unlisted RFCs" to get the rest cleared. You'll still have the problem that Wikipedia:Nobody reads the directions, but it might eventually help. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:10, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

  @Redrose64: It has taken me over two hours to fix Well thanks. The "later" doesn't mean "right now". Nothing warranted speedy fix here. I'm the only one who suffered. I was just going to withdraw malfunctioned RfC. Thanks anyway.--AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 14:30, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

  @Redrose64: If you want to make this requirement more salient, I suggest something in bold face, not necessarily red, in the basic instruction section ("Request comment on articles ...") that says something like, "If you're going to put multiple RfC discussions on the same page, see [Multiple RfCs on One Page section]". Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 22:13, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

  But: should we be emphasizing the instructions for how to do something, if we think people probably shouldn't be doing it in the first place? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:57, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

  That's one of the arguments against teaching kids about contraception (which, to be clear, is a terrible argument). This particular subthread is about how to stop people from screwing up Legobot and causing User:Redrose64 two hours of work. Elsewhere in this section, we discuss whether it's good for one person to have multiple RfCs going at the same time. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 01:22, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

  @Redrose64 and Giraffedata: I agree that WP:RFCOPEN section should direct one into a different section in case of Multiple RfC. The wording should be as NEUTRAL as it possible. Feel free to make a proposal. --AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 19:39, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

• Update: Further drama relating to this has spilled over at WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Request to enforce WP:FOC & WP:NPA in Talk:Malassezia.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:51, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
• Update: The exact same kind of "firehose of redundant RfCs" problem (with concomitant WP:BLUDGEONing) is also ongoing presently at Talk:Goths, where there are four open RfCs on essentially the same thing, two opened by the same person (generally in a way that seems designed to skirt the others from coming to consensus). I procedurally closed one as premature but am already getting yelled at for it by the opener of it, who wants to declare the RfCs above it "not workable" and not "functioning", despite no other editors appearing to feel that way about it. This has a WP:WINNING feel to it, and it needs to stop. Consider this a request for intervention by uninvolved editors to help these RfCs to procede to conclusions, and uninvolved admins to prevent any further disruption, lest this spawn another T-ban thread at ANI. WhatamIdoing is spot-on in wanting to focus on "the social and community problems", not bot-handling trivia.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:52, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

  This seems to be a growing problem in the Project, perhaps stemming from a legalistic mindset that sees RfCs as a way of getting a binding "judgement" (often a WP:LOCALCON-ish anti-WP:PAG gambit) than the instigators hope can be used to their advantage. RSN used to be a useful noticeboard, but seems to have become pretty much a pissing contest between people launching RfCs to get opposition sources deprecated and listed as WP:RSP, for example. I'm not sure what the solution is, but limiting the number of RfCs an editor can concurrently launch would be a step in the right direction. Alexbrn (talk) 11:27, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

  The Talk:Goths ones were at least started at well-separated intervals, and so none of the problems seen at either Talk:Malassezia or Talk:Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory were caused. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:22, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

  But all of the social problems are visible in these discussions. I think that @Alexbrn is on to something: the more you see an RFC as a binding judgement, the more you will want to have unnecessary RFCs, and the more you feel you must "win" them at any cost. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:00, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

  One of the key uses of an RfC is to resolve a dispute. If RfCs aren't binding judgments, then they can't serve that purpose. In recent practice, if not in theory, RfCs have become not a way, but Wikipedia's only way, to terminate intractable content disputes. I think that RfCs are a bad way to resolve such disputes, but all the other ways are worse... so please, let's not decide that RfCs aren't binding.—S Marshall T/C 09:29, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

  The problem at WP:RS/N is that they are apparently being used pre-emptively, not to settle (running) disputes. Alexbrn (talk) 09:35, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

  Isn't it better to reach consensus on the sources before the running disputes emerge?—S Marshall T/C 10:10, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

  If that's what it achieved, maybe. But in practice the consensus tends to be meaningless (some variant of "it depends"), or obvious without an RfC, or about sources which don't emerge. And sometimes even a "good" decision hardly dampens the drama, witness WP:DAILYMAIL permathread. It would be better if editors came to understand policy rather than aim at a legalistic, checkbox approach to things. Alexbrn (talk) 11:25, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

  One thing to remember is that WP:Consensus can change... so at best, an RFC can only temporarily resolve a dispute... the dispute can re-spark (for example, if new evidence emerges that was not considered in the RFC). The consensus established in one RFC only lasts until a new RFC assesses whether consensus has (or has not) changed. We also need to remember that an RFC might NOT resolve a dispute (“no consensus”). This does not make RFCs useless... they CAN resolve disputes... they just don’t resolve every dispute. Blueboar (talk) 13:56, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

  @Blueboar: Of course consensus may change, but so should the circumstances that previously led to the old one. --AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 21:41, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

  @S Marshall: so please, let's not decide that RfCs aren't binding I totally agree with this one here. I already told folks here that any attempts to criminalize RfC process will backfire with a disaster. --AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 21:41, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

  I think it's wildly inaccurate to say that anyone is "is criminalizing the RfC process". I hope you will consider re-reading this discussion with more care, to understand the nuances of what our fellow editors are saying. It is certainly true that the community can revisit decisions it has made in the past. The question is after how long, and there isn't a simple answer. Seeking to repeat a discussion until the outcome changes usually constitutes disruptive behaviour; but repeating a discussion when there's new evidence, such as some important new source that has emerged, is appropriate and helpful. Experienced Wikipedians are rather good at telling which is which.—S Marshall T/C 01:11, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

  Exactly... there are very few absolutes on WP. There are LOTS of nuances. This is why we change policies very SLOWLY... because there are often nuances that we will overlook if we act in haste. Blueboar (talk) 01:28, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

• It was in fact me, not User:SMcCandlish, who proposed that wording, in Special:Permalink/1002514760. I remain of the opinion that it's a good idea.—S Marshall T/C 20:40, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

  Yep.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:23, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

• Update: I have to admit that 4 RfC was a bit of overkill here so I took down the biggest one for now.--AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 19:39, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Same problem, different user

Just to state, this problem is not isolated to a single user. See Talk:Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory, where another user created six RfCs back-to-back, which also caused problems with the bot & dominated the page with RfCs. I agree with Alexbrn who earlier stated:

This seems to be a growing problem in the Project, perhaps stemming from a legalistic mindset that sees RfCs as a way of getting a binding "judgement"

We need to make it clear that RfCs should be used only when normal discussions have reached an impasse, and not the go-to solution for trying to legalistically push a specific result. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:07, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

@HandThatFeeds: I didn't read all threads in full. It appears that all RfC out there are listed under different topics. There is no WP:NODEADLINE in such discussions until WP:CONSENSUS is established, so I see no VERY SERIOUS problem there. Except of a bit of clutter.

a legalistic mindset that sees RfCs as a way of getting a binding "judgement" Yeah, it's called WP:CONSENSUS, which the most of the time is binding and what the RfC proceedings are created for. You can't twist the rules if you don't like something. I'm glad that Alexbrn is on his way to learn basic rules here.--AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 19:10, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

In point of fact Alexander_Davronov you are a poster child for the dark side of RfCs, launching 4 simultaneously trying to perform an end-run round the WP:PAGs to try and get some poorly-sourced medical content into Wikipedia. Result: a lot of wasted time from multiple editors with better things to do. Alexbrn (talk) 19:51, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

@Alexbrn: Well, relatively to WP:PAG I overlooked the major problem there. It wasn't about rules at all but about the way they are applied. On the rest, well, that's not the case anymore. You are free to go and checkout. --AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 20:00, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

I didn't read all threads in full.

That seems obvious. You don't understand the problem, yet dismiss it anyway. Also your condescending You can't twist the rules if you don't like something is noted, and right back at you. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:38, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

@HandThatFeeds: Well perhaps some of things might not have been discussed very thoroughly before out there, but opening up a bunch of small RfCs doesn't make me immediately angry. I would agree to a STRONG advice to settle down things in discussion first, but no more than that. Otherwise it will escalate into abusive usage very quickly.--AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 21:24, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Otherwise it will escalate into abusive usage very quickly.

And that's why I support changing the wording of the RfC policy to limit how many RfCs a single user can open at a time. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:33, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

@HandThatFeeds: I'm saying that RfC aren't abused, but the limitations on the RfC usage - will. Feel the difference. Stop trying to criminalize a basic dispute resolution process. You didn't show us conclusively how someone was hurt significantly by a bunch of RfC (except of bot probably. Poor thing works hard to keep up with pace). --AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 21:45, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Ah yes, the "actual harm" defense, when it's clear there's no other argument that holds up. I'm opposed to WP:PROCESS just for the sake of process, when people should just talk to each other. None of those RfCs needed to exist, they were just bludgeoning the other users with process instead of doing what the user should've done in the first place: propose changes and talk it out.

I've made my points, and I'm not going to be responding to you further. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:25, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

@HandThatFeeds: propose changes and talk it out. That's what I personally used RfC for. RfC are good at preventing WP:STONEWALLing or keep those who just don't want to WP:LISTEN or able to follow WP:TALKDONTREVERT policy - away. To say nothing of those who aren't genuinely interested in discussed matters. --AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 14:59, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Then you're misusing the RfC process. They should be a last resort not your go-to for forcing a decision when others disagree. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:32, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Then you're misusing the RfC process. That's what prescribe by WP:DR#RfCs. There is no option except of opening RfC if reverters avoid engaging in discussion.

your go-to for forcing Nobody is forced. You shouldn't modify RfC advice on a mere pretext of your disagreement with possible outcome. --AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 16:15, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

The reverters did not avoid engaging in discussion. That's obvious from the (multiple) talk pages. I can agree that they "avoided agreeing with you" or "avoided letting you add the content you want to add". WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:20, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello, @HandThatFeeds. I wonder if you have an opinion on whether it's worse to open several RFCs on the same page vs the same number of RFCs on separate pages. If I'm going to start six RFCs this week, would you be more irritated if I started six RFCs on one page, or one RFC on each of six (related) pages? WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:47, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Six on a single page is definitely worse. It's hard to justify throwing that many at a single page, because it implies that all six of those issues are facing intractable disagreement at the same time. That seems highly unlikely.

Six on different pages is more complex, and the central question is "are all these pages related?" If so, it sounds more like a person trying to force their own view on a topic, rather than solving issues relating to individual pages. If the pages are unrelated, knock yourself out (though you're probably spreading yourself too thin trying to deal with six concurrent RfCs anyway). When the pages are related, ask if you really need different RfCs on each one, or if they're all related to a central issue. For the latter, I'd suggest opening a single RfC on the most relevant page, and then posting notices on the others. Make sure the RfC participants are aware that this finding could impact the other related pages (assuming that's the case).

Which brings me to my final point: most likely those six RfCs don't need to be RfCs. The problem I brought in this subsection is a good illustration. All of the RfCs that were filed on that page have basically hit WP:SNOW status; either they were universally accepted changes, or universally rejected ones. There was no point to filing RfCs when a simple discussion would've sufficed. Using RfC for these issues was just bludgeoning people with process to try and force on user's preferred change onto a page. I'd rather see people just talk it out instead of this needless formality. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:58, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Well, I agree with you, @HandThatFeeds. We do occasionally see one (or sometimes, two related) RFCs, from someone who just didn't know how else to get anyone to reply to a question. But mostly, when there are an excessive number of RFCs, it's either because you told me no but I didn't want to hear that, or because I want to force my view on a topic. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:25, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

To respond to various "seeing RfCs as 'binding judgments'" comments above: It is not possible for RfCs or anything else to be binding judgments because WP:Consensus can change. Even ArbCom decisions can be appealed (repeatedly, over time, unlike those of a supreme court). If the theory given above, that this "RfC firehosing" problem stems from misinterpretation of RfCs as "binding judgments" to seek and win like civil lawsuits, then this is actually a form of WP:CIR failure, and needs to be correctively addressed both in WP:RFC (perhaps also at WP:CONSENSUS), and directly with the individuals pursuing such quixotic behavior.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:46, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

That's part of the problem, yes. People see a process for getting a "final" decision and so they bludgeon the page with RfCs to try and legalistically get their preferred version as consensus. See above, where User:Alexander_Davronov states That's what I personally used RfC for. RfC are good at preventing WP:STONEWALLing.... Apparently there's a perception that if people disagree with your change, going straight to an RfC is how to bulldoze through that disagreement. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:36, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

NOTE: See above, where User:Alexander_Davronov states — this shouldn't interpreted more broader than in the context of the Malassezia discussion I was talking about. See full reply here: #RfC are good at preventing.--AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 17:12, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

@HandThatFeeds: Please, refrain from drawing broad conclusions or intentions from my single reply. Assume WP:GOOD FAITH. Otherwise you potentially falsely misrepresent me and others here.--AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 17:12, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm drawing from your entire argument, that particular line was just emblematic of the problem. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:24, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

See also this User_talk:Alexander_Davronov thread, which is kind of WP:NOTGETTINGIT on steroids, like "I'm not getting it, and to hell with you try to get me to get it". Cf. also this weird and hostile prevarication [1], and its pretense that other editors' in put must be "solicited" to be valid at this editor's talk page. WTF?

The common thread I'm seeing here these "firehose a bunch of RfCs until I WP:WIN" cases is a general problem covered at WP:CAPITULATE, a belief that if you just argue long and hard enough, WP's other editors will eventually just cave in and do things your way. I'm not sure what the solution is. My normal go-to is "impose a reasonable-length topic ban" but maybe there are other more effective approaches. Just taking time to explain (again) in user talk is clearly not working. Lots of editors objecting to the RfC firehosing, the bludgeoning, the policy-ignorant arguments, is clearly not working.
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:16, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

A TBAN is a potential outcome in that instance, but since this editor's use of the RFC process is not unique, the process apparently needs a little more self-defense built into it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:27, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

I can only comment based on what was witnessed at Talk:Cultural_Marxism_conspiracy_theory where a certain editor created 6 RfCs in quick succession - it was amusing, but barmy. The frustration that led this editor to list so many RfCs was clearly down to the standard BRD method of changing/developing content not working for them. They were convinced that their point of view had merit and that other editors involved in the various discussions that had taken place there were wrong - something 6 RfCs would surely set straight. Acousmana 11:51, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

I was the editor. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:38, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

so you were, guess it was worth a shot? Acousmana 21:21, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes. I got pinged by WhatamIdoing, who mentioned it on the article talkpage. One of the RfC's has already set everything straight, which is good. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:43, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Another example

Here's another example of a single editor with an unusually high number of RFCs open. User:Snooganssnoogans has these RFCs open:

• Talk:Mitt Romney#RfC: Impeachment votes in lead
• Talk:Thomas McInerney#RfC: Can the lead mention anything about his 25 years as a commentator?
• Talk:Los Angeles Police Department#RfC: Should misconduct be mentioned in the lead?
• Talk:Arthur Laffer#RfC: Laffer curve in the lead – mention consensus? – User:Deacon Vorbis, it looks like you removed that RFC tag per WP:RFCBEFORE?
• Talk:Ron DeSantis#RfC: COVID-19 content

Snooganssnoogans, we're finding that some editors open a disproportionate share of RFCs. With five RFCs going, you're definitely on the high side. Do you have any idea why you use the RFC process so much more than most? What would happen to you if the community imposed a rule that said (for example) no individual editor could have more than two RFCs open at a time? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:10, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

A prohibition or severe curtailment of the number of RFCs that any individual editor can start would be a massive boon to editors that block content for spurious reasons and who abuse other Wikipedia policies to deadlock content so it favors the status quo. For example, the RFC on the Mitt Romney was started after a single editor kept blocking content for poor reasons (while citing BRD). Nothing short of a RFC was likely to lead to the inclusion of the content (the RFC ended with a unanimous consensus).[2] The RFC process is extremely effective in curtailing those kinds of abuses, which is why I make use of them on highly contentious pages where one or two editors block content and refuse to compromise. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:21, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

I wonder though, whether you needed to be the editor to personally start all of the RFCs. Maybe a "Should someone start an RFC?" discussion could have led to a less "expensive" resolution in some cases. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:35, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

I frequently disagree with Snoogan's content views but I wouldn't want to see a specific limit on the number of RfCs an editor could have open. I do think it would be better if we had some expectation that a significant level of discussion should occur before resorting to a RfC. This is a complaint I've had with Snoogan's use of RfC's in the past. I'm going to use the DeSantis RfC as an example [[3]]. (Note- I was not part of this topic and may have missed parts of this particular example). It appears that content was added then reverted. This resulted in a single two edit exchange then the RfC was started [[4]]. I feel like a RfC shouldn't be the first step after a revert but should be used only after significant talk page discussion first. If nothing else this is likely to result in a better question. Springee (talk) 03:53, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

I think bringing that Ron DeSantis RFC into this discussion about opening multiple RFC's is going off topic. You're essentially just shoving a content dispute you're unhappy with into this discussion. Bacondrum 06:34, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

It was one of the examples listed at the top of this section. I'm not involved with the topic and honestly didn't even read what the dispute was about. I noted it only because it was an example were there was basically no two way discussion prior to the RfC being opened. Springee (talk) 11:24, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Principles

It seems to me that we've established these beliefs as being generally held:

• Don't ever start a second RFC on the same page until the bot has assigned an RFC id number to the first one.
  • In this case, it doesn't matter who starts the second/subsequent RFCs.
  • The main problem here is technical.
• You probably shouldn't (yourself) start multiple RFCs on the same page at the same time.
  • Two RFCs might be okay, depending on the situation, but having lots of RFCs isn't. I don't think I saw anyone supporting the same editor having three RFCs open on the same page at the same time. (Does anyone?)
  • This doesn't preclude other people from starting an RFC on that page.
  • The main problem here is social: bludgeoning of process, other editors feeling like their time was wasted, etc.
• It's bad to have multiple RFCs on the same subject at the same time (even if they're on different pages).
  • If the subject affects multiple pages, then centralize the discussions to a single location.
  • The main problem here is procedural: What if one RFC concludes to do X, and the other concludes to do not-X?

I'm not sure whether there was general agreement about having a large number of totally unrelated RFCs. There was some support for it, so I think that we either agree that it's okay, or we don't have agreement, so it shouldn't be mentioned here. (I'm also not sure that it matters, because nobody only one editor seems to do that.)

Does that sound about right to you? WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:17, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

I was pinged and I think all of these suggestions are good. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:23, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I think these are excellent suggestions. The most recent RFC-mageddon I have encountered involved 6 being opened at once, in good faith, but really it was silly move, an attempt to negate the usual BRD process. I think generally not opening anymore than two RFC's at a time is a good idea, opening more than that at once is disruptive it's kind of gaming wikipedia's usual BRD process - I think it is akin to bludgeoning the process - simply bludgeoning talk page with RFC's. Bacondrum 23:51, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree with all that. Good job.

I'm still a little unsure that 3 RfCs a month apart is better than 3 nonoverlapping RfCs all at once followed by 3 months of silence (i.e. the volume problem is concurrence, not just rate), but there seems to be a lot of belief that it is, so I'll acquiesce to that one. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 04:28, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that everyone would draw the line at three non-overlapping RFCs. Also, there is probably a difference between starting three on the same day, and starting one every 14 days (which, if neither of the first two resolve quickly, would result in having three RFCs open at least briefly). WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:19, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

• FWIW I personally try to stick to a one-RFC-at-a-time rule, meaning if I launch one RfC on any page (meaning a real, tagged, indexed RfC, not just a proposal), I won't start a second one anywhere until that first one is delisted. (So usually that's one RfC per month from me.) I think it's really presumptuous for me as one editor to list multiple RFCs on the index at the same time. Like I should limit how much of other's people's time I ask for. I think one RfC per editor at a time is a good place to draw the line but YMMV. Levivich ^harass/_hound 00:26, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Discussing RfC before posting it

(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)

Everyone knows that Stroopwafels are the one true dessert on wiki.

@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)

RFC subsections

As many of you know, most RFCs are taking a standard format... we start with a statement outlining a proposed change (sometimes multiple choice)... then a section for !votes (sometimes split into “Support” and “Opposed”) and finally a section for “Discussion”.

This is all well and good, and works well when there is only one RFC on an individual talk page. But this standard format is NOT helpful when there are multiple RFCs on the same talk page. When a talk page has multiple RFCs - ALL with the SAME “Support”, “Oppose”, “Discussion” sub-headings, it is often very difficult to figure out WHICH RFC a comment is for (especially when scanning recent edits on one’s watchlist).

Could we encourage editors to add more info to the sub-headings (say: “Support (RFC option)” or “Discuss (RFC issue)” where the parenthetical tells others WHICH RFC the edit is for? Blueboar (talk) 22:41, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Already covered with wider scope at WP:TALKNEW. 68.97.37.21 (talk) 22:53, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Sure, but no one seems to be following those instructions when it comes to RFCs. So perhaps we should add something here to reinforce it. Blueboar (talk) 23:03, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm against subsections within RfCs. To me, the RfC should itself be a subsection, the parent section being the discussion whose non-resolution meant that a RfC was necessary. If there is no parent section, this means that WP:RFCBEFORE was not observed. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:28, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

In my opinion, the solution to editors' ignorance about guidelines, which largely rresults from having too much of them, is not to create more of them, particularly redundantly. The solution is to JUSTFIXIT with clear and meaningful edit summaries and let those editors see you doing it (optionally with UTP notes to the editors who create the duplicate headings). I see only one editor doing that regularly and there should be many more doing it regularly. As for me, I'm no longer heavily involved/invested in this project and didn't do it regularly when I was. I was not entirely comfortable being in such a tiny minority on the issue, and I asked myself, "Who am I to enforce this when almost nobody else cares about it?" That's on me.

Disagree with Redrose64, I think a separate "Survey" section is very helpful in assessing consensus (and such an RfC can still be subordinate to a parent discussion, making that a separate and independent issue). 68.97.37.21 (talk) 23:38, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Is it me that is doing that regularly? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:19, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes. 68.97.37.21 (talk) 23:07, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

68.97, the problem with "a separate "Survey" section is very helpful in assessing consensus" is that it turns into "a separate "Survey" section is very helpful in counting and emphasizing votes, even though an RFC is supposed to be a normal, consensus-oriented discussion and not a vote". WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:55, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

I composed a longer response and then decided against it.

Understood, I've heard that before. Clearly, a very large fraction of editors disagree, which is why we keep seeing Survey sections. I expect that to continue until Survey sections are explicitly outlawed by explicit community consensus with wide participation. That's a complicated philosophical debate better conducted at the Village Pump than in this thread. 68.97.37.21 (talk) 05:07, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

I have occasionally wondered, when there are both ===Survey=== and ===Discussion=== sections, whether the closers (if any) read the ===Discussion=== sections, and if they give them the same weight as the convenient ===Survey=== comments.

I think that the best format for an RFC depends upon the question. I designed Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles/RFC on pharmaceutical drug prices, and it was very long and complex, so obviously I think that's appropriate for some RFCs. But I have also opened RFCs with zero subsections, just like most editors do, so obviously I think that's appropriate, too. If anyone is interested in the subject in general, then Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Example formatting describes some of the advantages and disadvantages of different formats. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:19, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

In response to I have occasionally wondered... whether the closers (if any) read the Discussion sections, and if they give them the same weight as the convenient Survey comments. -- Personally, I read them and often find them helpful. I'm rather inconsistent in how much weight I give them because the I find that nature of the "Discussion" sections is very variable. Sometimes there's a lot of thought and careful analysis of sources that's very valuable in deciding how to weight the votes. Other times it's mostly a long back-and-forth between two users who've totally lost patience with each other and when I've finished reading it, I want my ten minutes back. With the RfCs I find hardest to close, sometimes I follow the diffs one by one so I can see how the votes and the discussion sections evolve together -- it does occasionally happen that someone makes a killer point in the discussion that affects every subsequent vote. The discussion section usually gives me context and background to the dispute, an idea of who advocates what position and why, and some clues about whether and to what extent the RfC formulator has extreme views -- or whether the RfC is a response to an extremist arriving in the topic area -- all very helpful to know.—S Marshall T/C 11:15, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

WP:TALKNEW does not cover this. That says whole discussions should have unique titles. E.g. if there's a section on a talk page headed "Lead is too long", you shouldn't create another section/discussion also headed "Lead is too long". I don't think it's generally a problem for subheadings to have to be read in the context of the superior heading, though we've identified here a specific situation where it is. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 02:14, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

The reason to have unique section headings is because of WP:ACCESS, and the reason applies equally regardless of whether it's a ==Main section== or a ===Subsection===. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:20, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

There are always oversights and minor errors. Just correct the subheadings if you come across cases like this? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:19, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

@Blueboar, what makes you think that "most" RFCs have multiple subsections? The last time I counted, which might have been a year or two ago, those were a distinct minority. (Now if you'd said that "most RFCs posted to a Village Pump page", I'd probably agree with you.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:53, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Meh... perhaps my use of “most” is colored by which pages are on my watchlist. It is certainly the standard on a lot of the policy/guideline pages, and especially at the RS noticeboard (which often has multiple RFCs open at the same time). The point is that, when a talk page has multiple RFCs that DO use this format, it is very difficult to follow who is replying to what. It would be helpful to have clearer sub-headings. Blueboar (talk) 11:44, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Well, yes, @Blueboar, I have to agree with that. The solution to the RSN problem is probably (a) prohibit the WP:RSP pushers from opening an RFC at all until they can prove, with diffs/links and under penalty of having to vote in a hundred AFDs if they're wrong, that there have been at least two difficult disputes over the source they're trying to ban, (b) make them hold those votes on a different page so that RSN can work normally again, and (c) write a proper sample page for how to write these things, instead of linking to an old example. I suppose that (i.e., "You") could put a new section for that at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Example formatting if you wanted. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:44, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

The suggestion that an RfC starter on the reliable sources noticeboard should be forced to "vote in a hundred AFDs if they're wrong" is highly objectionable for multiple reasons:

• Many editors who start RfCs on the reliable sources noticeboard are not "trying to ban" any source: they are soliciting opinions on the reliability of a source from a broad section of the community. How do you determine if they are "wrong" when they do not even express an opinion in the RfC?
• To my knowledge, there is no precedent on the English Wikipedia in which an editor who expresses a certain opinion on a noticeboard is penalized by being forced to spend multiple hours making comments in another area of Wikipedia. This is antithetical to the principle that Wikipedia is a volunteer service, and that editors can work in the areas that they wish to work in. I'm sure there have been occasions in which the opinion you expressed in an RfC differs from the result of the RfC. How would you feel if you were penalized in this way for expressing your opinion?

If you do not like the perennial sources list, you are not obligated to use it. Likewise, if you do not like certain discussions on the reliable sources noticeboard, you are not obligated to participate in them. Other editors will continue to maintain the list because they find it useful, and other editors will continue to participate in these discussions because they believe their input helps improve the reliability of articles on Wikipedia. — Newslinger talk 10:55, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

@Newslinger, that was a joke; I'm sorry you didn't think it was funny. On the pointful misunderstandings, I disagree that most (NB: "most" ≠ "all") editors who start RSP-focused RFCs aren't trying to get the source banned. However, what I want them to be correct about is "that there have been at least two difficult disputes over the source". I don't care whether they're correct about whether the source should or shouldn't be banned. I am pretty confident that when someone shows up at RSN with a source that nobody's ever discussed before that we'll have no difficulty determining that they're wrong about the "at least two difficult disputes over the source" part.

You are also incorrect that if I don't like RSP, then I can ignore it. That list, as predicted for many years before its creation, has resulted in mindless removal of sources that are actually reliable in the specific WP:RSCONTEXT. It has also resulted in thousands of actually-reliable-in-context sources being removed, but the content being left in. To give two examples: an editor has cited RSP to say that Daily Mail is not a reliable source for a statement about itself, and another editor has removed a Chinese newspaper, being used to support the title of a Chinese government official, because RSP says it's a bad source, even though the one thing you can expect that newspaper to get absolutely correct is the current title of the Chinese state officials. Because RSP exists, and because some, usually less experienced, editors apparently cannot be bothered to follow the multiple warnings in RSP against brain-dead citation blanking, then, you're wrong: all editors are affected by RSP's existence. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:35, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying, and I apologize for misunderstanding the "if they're wrong" part. The four combined RfCs on the Daily Mail (RSP entry) and Global Times (RSP entry) tabloids establish that it is not enough for an editor to cite the tabloid for a claim; the editor must also establish why the use of the tabloid in that instance is reliable in the context of the claim in light of the tabloid's history of publishing false and fabricated information, as required by WP:BURDEN. WP:ABOUTSELF is a valid argument for inclusion, but it is subject to five restrictions that limit its application. Any disagreements can be discussed on the article talk page or on the noticeboard. What I meant by "If you do not like the perennial sources list, you are not obligated to use it" is that the list is only an index of prior noticeboard discussions, and that you are free to ignore the list and refer only to the discussions themselves. If the list did not exist, linking to the prior noticeboard discussions would have the same effect. The list exists to make it easier for others to check, for instance, whether an editor is cherrypicking only the discussions that support their argument. The perennial sources list has been acclaimed as an effective measure against disinformation, and that is something I feel that the community can be proud of. — Newslinger talk 02:51, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it's possible to fight the mindlessness, but why should we have to? Why should a citation to an article in the Daily Mail that says ____ be defaultly, mindlessly, stupidly considered an unreliable source for a sentence in a Wikipedia article that only says "The Daily Mail claimed ____"? You might argue that it's undue, but surely if the article said ____, then the article is actually reliable – even authoritative – for the fact that the source contained those words. This is practically Verifiability 101.

> If the list did not exist, linking to the prior noticeboard discussions would have the same effect.

This is not true. Some of these noticeboard discussions only happened because RSP exists. Some editors have opened RFCs at RSN because RSP exists. These editors believed that the community wanted them to attempt to pre-classify every possible news source. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:13, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

And this "deprecation" system too. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:41, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Not related to any replies above, but to the general topic of subsections in RfCs - has anybody noticed this collection? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:08, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Eight section headings for one RFC. That's ...probably not actually a record, unfortunately, but it's probably close. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:45, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Since my own RfC is mentioned:

I posted the above as what would be my first RfC, even though I have lurked for quite a few years, and (as an IP) asked for the redirect Michael John Graydon Soroka to be created through WP:AFC/R. The reason why I created an RfC is because I would like a precedent (see test cases) on application of WP:REDCAT. I admit that my phrasings and headings are quite convoluted (even if the involvement of two more Michaels are not, involvement of Courland is). I also admit that an RfC is not the best venue to ask, but please understand that no-one replied to my question at WP:VPP, made before the RfC.

As for bureaucraticness, I have later edited the RFC to only have two headings, and I later respected its closure by placing the {{closed rfc top}} and bottom tags and redirecting prospective readers to my VP listing. Either way, the RfC should be way easier to navigate now.

To conclude, I ask that you accept my apologies for wasting your time (by posting on the wrong venue), respect my good intentions and open-heartedness to your advice, and refrain from biting me or mentioning it in a way that embarrasses me (see User:DePlume/Soroka). Be bold, though, to use it to educate future RfC makers. Thanks, DePlume (talk) 06:06, 6 April 2021 (UTC), edited on 06:12, 6 April 2021 (UTC).

@DePlume, you didn't waste our time. Writing effective RFCs can be tough, and the first draft isn't always the best. You're welcome to ask for advice here before you post your next one. (And I was right: you definitely didn't set a record, because I wrote one last year that started with nine section headings, and ended with sixteen – and I supposedly know what I'm doing with these things. ;-) ) WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:05, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

That's OK, and thank you. I meant my "Since my own RfC…" to Redrose64 who commented on my RfC, calling it a waste of time (I have posted my question to VPP prior without mentioning at the M.J.G.S. RfC that I have done so). I meant my message to them, and I am tagging them so that I am not talking behind their back. DePlume (talk) 05:25, 10 April 2021 (UTC) (updated on 05:29, 10 April 2021 (UTC))

I stand by my comment. It is a waste of time to go straight for a full-blown formal RfC (something which can last for thirty days and will trigger messages to the user talk pages of many people) when you could have easily resolved it by a simple question at one of the many help boards that we provide. RfC is not for trivial matters of obtaining help, it is for resolving those difficult issues that are becoming tense or deadlocked. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 13:43, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

I understand and apologise. I just hope that there would a more gentle way to put it. I am not an admin after all. Sorry again, DePlume (talk) 16:02, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Survey sections

So I have read the above, and have various thoughts about several things ppl have said. That said, the discussion has me musing: What if we did away with the Support/Oppose sections entirely? Perhaps this might nudge people to actually discuss rather than just "drive by vote". And if there are closers who are merely "vote counting", this might help with that as well.

I'm not so naive to think that there aren't those who seem to think that consensus is "their right to vote", but I wonder where we actually are as a community on that.

Maybe we should start an RFC about it - with support and oppose sections, of course  : ) - jc37 14:37, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

I think we need more information about why people are using this format. There are sometimes good reasons (e.g., expecting an unusually high volume of responses or to signal the end of a long background explanation) and sometimes it's just what you saw elsewhere and you liked the aesthetics. We wouldn't want to propose a rule against something without understanding why editors are doing it. So I've gone through the list – @Blueboar, it's still not "most", but it is more than it used to be – and I've made a little list from the article-related RFCs. Perhaps these editors can tell us what inspired them to choose a more complicated format. Therefore, I'm pinging:

• @Robert McClenon because of Talk:Argentina national football team results (2020–present)#RFC:Format of Table and Talk:Algeria#RFC on Infobox and Lede
• @Clear Looking Glass who has made a voting section at Talk:Hamdi Ulukaya#RFC: Lede sentence that nobody has used
• @Tbhotch because of Talk:Super Straight
• @Wingedserif because of Talk:Strategies for Engineered Negligible Senescence#RfC on SENS controversy section
• @JBchrch because of Talk:Great Barrington Declaration#RfC: "Controversial research funded by AIER in the past includes a study asserting that sweatshops supplying multinationals are beneficial for those working in them"
• @Boud who has given people instructions on how to vote at Talk:Demographics of Eritrea#RfC on UN DESA 2019 Eritrea population estimate
• @Lawrencekhoo who added a simple ===Comments=== subsection at Talk:Elizabeth II#RFC Lead Paragraph and Talk:Isa Briones#RfC Lead sentence
• @Springee because of Talk:Odal (rune)#RfC CPAC stage Odal shape
• @MJL because of Talk:List of people killed for being transgender#RFC: Establishing list criteria

All: The ultimate goal is to have the complexity of the RFC format match the complexity of the situation. You have an RFC open that has some ===Extra structure=== inside it. This isn't automatically a bad thing. What I'm asking is why you decided to use this style. My hope is to turn your best practices into a good explanation about when to add and when to avoid subsections. It's okay if you don't have much of an answer or if your answer is that it was probably unnecessary. We just want to know if you can give us any advice. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:01, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Caveat: that was my first RfC, so my views are probably not the most policy-based but maybe a good indication of how RfCs are seen by newer editors. First, I opened my RfC after a long article talk discussion and then user talk discussion with a single other editor. We were going in circles so I wanted to break that. Unfortunately, most of the editors who responded in the Survey section didn't stick around for the ensuing longer discussion, which has left the RfC w/ an unclear consensus (so far).

Second, I included a Survey section because I was under the impression that they make clear what each editor's overall recommendations for the topic, regardless of how into-the-weeds the discussion gets. It's a courtesy for readers who want to know where everyone stands, but !voting. —Wingedserif (talk) 16:23, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Pinging Mathglot, who created the substructure at the Talk:Great Barrington Declaration RfC [5]. However, in my completely anecdotal and limited experience, discussions section are also often created by participants in order to write/comment something that is not a !vote. JBchrch (talk) 17:13, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

• Responding to WhatamIdoing's ping: I like the general format of the ==Title + opening statements/question ===Survey ===Discussion layout. I don't like it when some editors just post a question and the RfC tag. Still, I haven't thought much about a possibly better structure. I do get what Blueboar was concerned about regarding hyper links. To avoid this issue I often add to the Survey etc names to avoid cross linking RfCs. I sympathize with the concern regarding vote counting vs argument quality (kudos to S Marshall for many well thought out closes... except for any that closed the way I didn't want of course). Still, I don't think the concern regarding simply vote counting is always that big an issue. If there isn't a strong policy based reason then often vote counting is the best we have and part of why I agree with the idea that, in general, a consensus is far more than just 51% favor X. Perhaps the biggest issue I've seen is if we get a questionable closing (the old super vote), the close is challenged and then those who liked the close show up and argue the facts of the case, not the facts of the closing and we get a "no consensus to re-open". For example if say 51% say "Yes" and the RfC is closed as "Consensus for Yes". The "No's" challenge the closing, the Yes's say "good close" and we get a roughly 50-50 split thus no consensus to re-open. Forgive me that off topic rant. Anyway, I think the survey count does matter but it isn't the only issue. Some editors seem to do a nice job with these closings while others don't. Perhaps haps what might be helpful here would be two different types of RfC. The survey kind works well if the question is rather binary. It fails when we are looking for open ended suggestions. Perhaps we should consider an alternative suggested format for cases where we really are looking for open ended suggestions/comments rather than what might be called adjudicating content. A RfC that is meant to be more like a "please provide an outside voice" may be helpful. If the "Survey !vote" RfC is a trial, what I'm suggesting is a "Rf amicus brief". Springee (talk) 17:22, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
• I gave a brief summary of what the question means and what the options mean, listing all options that I could think of as possibly being reasonable or having been proposed, so that people could !vote meaningfully. Given my perception that one likely participant involved in the issue seemed to persist in making ambiguous statements, it seemed necessary to define things reasonably clearly. (PS: Closure of the RfC by an uninvolved editor is needed...) Boud (talk) 22:57, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

• Responding to the ping, but I occasionally use survey sections for the same reasons everyone else said. I also do it because it forces people to take a hard stance on the RFC's main question. RFCs are supposed to be used when conventional discussions have broken down into dispute, so when I make a survey I try to format it in such a way that it has a clear structure and purpose. That way, outsiders may be more keen on participating and eventually closing it. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 04:14, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
• Please can we not make a rule deprecating support/oppose sections. There are definitely use cases.—S Marshall T/C 10:17, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

  @S Marshall, how often (outside of RFA, which isn't an RFC anyway) do you actually need separate ===Support=== and ===Oppose=== sections? A single ===Survey=== or ===Poll=== section is far more common. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:40, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

  May I refer you to the "examples" section, below? I do think that there can be times when straight-up voting is appropriate, and separate sections can be a good choice for those times.—S Marshall T/C 22:47, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

  None of the examples have a separate section for supporters and opposers. Compare those layouts to Talk:Malassezia#RfC: M. restricta spp. 2 (CD/Colitis). WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:42, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

  I'm sorry, I was still reflecting on separating the !votes from the discussion. I should have been reflecting on separating the supports from the opposes. I've added another practice example where this was done. In cases where the RfC drafters have decided to split off the !votes from the discussion, I can't see any practical difference about how the !votes are grouped.—S Marshall T/C 10:02, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

  I find that when the votes are split, that I don't read as many comments, and I tend to primarily read comments from one section or the other. Also, it's harder to see those moments when one editor presents such compelling information that the discussion is basically over. We've all seen that in AFDs, right? Everyone says keep, keep, keep, keep until an editor points out that the article is a blatant copyright violation, and after that, everyone says delete, delete, delete, delete. Or they're voting to delete an article as being non-notable until someone posts a list of whole books about the subject, and then everyone changes their minds. I wouldn't want to ban it, because every now and again we run into a "majority rule" situation with a very large number of voters, but it is usually a bad idea. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:22, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

  Well, I'd say it's "often" a bad idea. I'm concerned that if we say something like "often a bad idea" in the rules, that would be read and widely understood as "totally verboten".—S Marshall T/C 23:47, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

  I think your edit summary exaggerated things. It often takes two years for people to notice that the rules changed in the first place. But once they've noticed that the rule exists, you're right that it can be a quick trip from "strictly optional suggestion" to "mandatory rule followed by all loyal citizens". WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:34, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

  To User:S Marshall: OK, I am biassed in this one thanks to Talk:Michael John Graydon Soroka, but I think that doing away with support/oppose/neutral and mandating "Survey" will greatly improve readability. What's better than having "Support", "Oppose", and "Comments" merged into one? That was rhetorical, NotReallySoroka (talk) 02:45, 16 April 2021 (UTC) (formerly DePlume)

• @Jc37: There are plenty of cases which if any restrictions on subsections are applied would affect them detrimentally. Sometimes RfCs don't have any subsections at all as they aren't contentious.--AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 20:46, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Reply by Robert McClenon

I will reply this way, maybe to annoy everybody. User:WhatamIdoing - I created those RFCs with Survey sections because I have been creating RFCs with Survey sections for years, and I have not been advised that a different form is preferred. For background information, the RFCs that I create are usually from DRN, so that I am neutral and am trying to keep the RFC neutral. One of the reasons for the Survey section was to keep the !votes separate from any long back-and-forth. I don't use Support and Oppose because I don't always have only two options, and besides sometimes the Support/Oppose choices seem non-neutral, to favor one choice. Sometimes I have broken an RFC into sections; in that case, I usually have multiple Survey sections.

Basically, I use Survey sections in order to keep the short responses separate from the long discussion, and because I have been doing it for years, and have not been advised that there is a better way. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:56, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

• I think this is a fair assessment of why others (myself included) have added such sections. I wonder if there would be a better way (or maybe better ways) to suggest for "best practices", in order to better foster discussion, rather than merely to add-a-comment. - jc37 18:13, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
• @Robert McClenon: As long as they are neutral it's perfectly fine to name your subsections the way you like. It's basically matters of personal preferences and any restrictions here would create unnecessary inconveniences and give another reason to harass newcomers/inexperienced contributors instead of making useful contributions. --AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 20:46, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Sub-sections clarification

Just a note... I don’t have an issue with dividing an RFC into subsections... my issue is not clarifying which RFC the subsection is attached to. A page such as the RS noticeboard can have as many as five RFCs open at the same time, and it is often difficult to keep track of which RFC a comment is being posted to. In mobile view, you can see the subheading, so you know that the comment was posted under “Discussion” or “Survey”... but when there are multiple RFC threads, each with a “Survey” and “Discussion” you can not tell which “Survey” or “Discussion” the comment belongs to. It would be helpful if, in an RFC about X, the subheadings said “Discussion (X RFC)” or “Survey (X RFC)”... to differentiate it from “Discussion (Y RFC)” and “Survey (Y RFC)” Blueboar (talk) 18:55, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for that comment, User:Blueboar. Having multiple subsections with the same name can cause problems in desktop view also, so, as you note, it is helpful to disambiguate the sections (sort of like disambiguating articles). Robert McClenon (talk) 19:22, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

As established in the early replies in the parent section, this is not a problem with insufficient consensus or guidelines, but insufficient awareness and enforcement. 68.97.37.21 (talk) 06:58, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

As 68.97.37.21 mentioned above, this is covered under WP:TALKNEW ("Don't create a new heading that duplicates an existing heading"). However, I think it would be helpful to briefly mention the recommendation on this page as well. — Newslinger talk 10:36, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

I added that to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Example formatting. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:41, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Practice examples

I'd like to try to illuminate this with a few examples, and I'm interested in the community's view on the design and structure of each.

Example 1: Is there a difference between V and V**?. In this case, the drafters (correctly in my view) decided not to use a survey section. At issue was a question of mathematics. It has a right answer and a wrong answer, and any compromise between the right answer and the wrong answer is another kind of wrong answer. So a simple, free-form discussion that invited proofs and evidence was the correct format.

Example 2: Which image of Donald Trump shall we use?. In this case, the drafters (defensibly in my view) decided to use a weighted voting system. At issue was a question of aesthetic judgment, and no policy or guideline to inform the choice was available. So a weighted voting system was the correct format, although as it turned out, editors didn't make much use of the weighting.

Example 3: Concerning campus rape. In this case there were no subsections and nobody used a bolded vote. The issues in that one were topical at the time, and rather difficult to resolve, but in my view the structure needed no more complexity. I feel that votes would have been unhelpful.

Example 4: Concerning racially nuanced language in article titles. In this case, there was a survey, followed by discussion subsections which contained an awful lot of thought. I put it to you that it was not possible to close that RfC adequately without reading the discussion sections in full. A less structured RfC would have been just as easy to close; and I would have preferred fewer constraints on how editors can give their input.

Example 5: Regarding people who aren't deaf. In this case, the RfC was poorly designed, phrased as a yes-or-no choice when in fact there were additional options. This one was early in my RfC closing "career", so to speak, and it's informed a lot of my subsequent closing practice. Where there are either/or choices, I always ask myself if the question is framed right. Are these all the options? Are the options mutually exclusive?

Example 6: On nationality. This discussion separated the "support" votes from the "opposes". I don't think the structure affected the conduct or outcome of the RfC. I don't see it as a helpful thing to do, but I can't see how it harms, either.

I do think there's a place for the voting structure.—S Marshall T/C 19:12, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

• Reflecting on those cases has brought me to S Marshall's Principle of RfC Design, which is: When you're choosing between different ways you could format an RfC, you should prefer the least restrictive, where the least restrictive is the format that has the fewest constraints on what editors can say and where they can say it.—S Marshall T/C 22:55, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
  • What these examples show is that there isn’t one single “best way” to format an RFC. It isn’t wrong to use a tightly structured format (although I do wish that more RFCs using the “choose A, B or C” format would include a “D - none of the above - please explain” option) but it also isn’t wrong to set up something more open ended. Blueboar (talk) 20:53, 15 April 2021 (UTC)