WikiProject Dispute Resolution  (Inactive)
WikiProject icon
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Dispute Resolution, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.
 

New RfC

I created a new RfC here but I don't see it listed in this, "RfC/All" page. Please help!-Y2edit? (talk) 09:06, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Patience is needed as RfCs are not updated immediately. However, I have closed that RfC as premature. Johnuniq (talk) 10:21, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Y2edit?: It was listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Media, the arts, and architecture, from 09:01, 3 April 2022 (UTC) until 11:01, 3 April 2022 (UTC) - just two hours. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/All is built from Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Media, the arts, and architecture and a number of other pages; it occasionally needs a WP:PURGE to bring it fully up to date. So there is a chance that at 09:06, 3 April 2022 (UTC) - when you raised this thread - it hadn't yet been rebuilt; all you needed to do, other then the aforementioned WP:PURGE, was to wait and try again (but not later than 11:01). --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:53, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks!-Y2edit? (talk) 22:03, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like a Checkuser block here. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:51, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Arecaceae bot parse error

(Invasive Spices moved this from Talk:Arecaceae#Agricultural economics RfC.)

That's very odd. Thank you for noticing and correcting this. I see the instructions do say so but I failed to notice it. Invasive Spices (talk) 16 April 2022 (UTC)

rfc for u

this page should be fully protected or semi protected so only admins or establised users can edit it Quident (talk) 18:40, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

the page u — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quident (talkcontribs) 18:40, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Quident: This is misuse of the WP:RFC process. Moreover, requests for changes to the page protection level should be made at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:59, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
oh im sorry Quident (talk) 12:14, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How many RfCs is too many?

Revisiting last year's discussion on RfC proliferation, which is now in Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Archive 18#Volume problems, I now draw your attention to Talk:List of political parties in Italy and its recent archives.—S Marshall T/C 16:20, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WSJ RfC

This RfC has been unused for months but hasn't been closed, is there anywhere I can request a resolution? Bill Williams 04:15, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Bill Williams: What RfC? Please provide links. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:08, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I was just looking at this and I think he means the one at Talk:The Wall Street Journal. ("WSJ" is standard Americish, and it's a linguistically interesting abbreviation because you'd only ever type it out -- in spoken language it's fewer syllables just to say "Wall Street Journal".) Bill, you can post requests for closure on WP:CR.—S Marshall T/C 11:25, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ah okay, thanks for the help. Bill Williams 23:48, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Comment on WP:RFC

In the attempt to create an RFC for the ultratouchy subject which is "Zionism as settler colonialism", several of the active editors attempted to vote to kill the RFC before it could go active or be noticed on (currently) mistaken procedural grounds. WP:RFC currently recommends using short clear questions and avoiding open ended requests but there's nothing about either being mandatory and the ending policies assume that conversation be allowed to procede until there's consensus that the issues raised have been adequately addressed. The posters above on the other hand truly believed that it was fine to shut off requests for discussion that weren't narrowly tailored to individual questions. (This would seem to require multiple RFCs for a single page when the issues to be addressed, as here, are wide ranging.)

  1. Does WP:RFC need to be rewritten to end all RFCs that are not phrased as short questions?
  2. Does it need to be rewritten to ban all open-ended requests for comment? or
  3. Does it need to be rewritten to more clearly explain that RFCs can't be "voted closed" by the group happy with the current page?

To my mind, it's clear that more involvement is always helpful, especially on ultrasensitive subjects. I know more recent wikipedians are more generally in favor of tighter gatekeeping, but do the admins really want cliques of local editors shutting out open requests for outside voices? If some specific person is being unhelpful or disruptive, that can be pointed out separately. On the otherhand, WP:OWNERSHIP used to be viewed as a bad thing, which RFC was a tool to help address without brigading or building up teams of allies (which just repeats the same problem at a higher level). — LlywelynII 16:09, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The advice in favor of short questions and against open-ended requests is just intended to say the RfC is more likely to get useful results that way. If someone really believes her RfC is special and works better with a complex open-ended question, I'm fine with that, so don't think (1) and (2) are called for.
I think the existing explanation of how RfCs should end makes it clear you can't just end it because "I know I'm right, so no one else's input is required". This is the first time I've heard of someone thinking that the page allows for that, so unless I see more evidence of this mindset, I don't think (3) is called for -- it would just overcomplicate the text. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 02:47, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Part of it is technical. If the RfC statement (defined as everything after the ((rfc)) tag up to and including the first valid timestamp after that) is too long, then Legobot won't list it correctly, as with these four. In such cases, Legobot also won't be able to identify the start time, and so will therefore be unable to determine the thirty-day limit either, and won't remove the ((rfc)) tag - this rfc should get delisted in less than three hours from now, but I'll warrant that it won't be. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:22, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]