Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment

This is the talk page for discussing Requests for comment and anything related to its purposes and tasks.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

WT:RFCWT:RFC

NOTE: This talk page is not the place to post notices of disputes or requests for comment, or to ask questions about changes you would like to make to individual articles. Please follow Wikipedia:Requests for comment.

view · edit

Frequently asked questions

The RFC question isn't neutral!: Wikipedians are rarely swayed by a non-neutral question. They've got their own minds and they'll come to their own conclusions. A non-neutral question might be a good reason to fix the question, but it is not usually grounds to halt or re-start the RFC. If you believe that a question is non-neutral, you are better off simply participating in the RFC to present arguments about the underlying dispute. An additional comment about the question's neutrality may or may not be appropriate, depending on its relevance to those arguments.
The RFC question is not brief. Can I fix it?: The "question" is the part that shows up on the RFC listing pages (example of listing page). If the RFC question itself is substantially longer than all the others and you are not appearing in the role of the loyal opposition, then you can copy a small part the original question plus the original timestamp (not usually the name) to the top or write a simplified question. If, however, the person who started the RFC discussion might consider you to be part of the dispute, you should ask someone else to adjust it (e.g., by asking the person who started the RFC to shorten it or by posting a note on the RFC talk page).
I don't like any of the options I've been asked to vote for.: RFCs aren't votes. You can suggest a compromise or an option that others haven't considered, exactly like you would in any other talk page discussion.
How long should an RFC last?: As long as all of the participants need, and no longer. If you started an RFC, and you believe other editors will not agree to your proposal, then you are permitted to admit defeat and withdraw it at any time. However, editors who believe their side is winning are advised to not even mention the possibility of ending an RFC early during the first week.
Is the result of an RFC binding?: Not inherently, but an RFC is usually an effective way of determining the consensus of editors, which is binding. The formal closing summary of an RFC is generally considered to be a summary of the current consensus, although consensus can change over time.
Aren't all RFCs supposed to get a formal closing summary?: No. Most of the time, the result is clear to all of the participants, and editors should not waste the community's time by asking someone else to officially write down what everyone already knows. Only a minority of RFCs get closing summary statements.
Can the person who started the RFC, or another involved editor, write a summary of the discussion?: Yes. In particular, when a proposal is soundly rejected, proponents are encouraged to accept defeat with grace. However, if the outcome could plausibly be disputed, then involved editors (on all sides of a dispute) are encouraged to let someone else write a summary.
There was an RFC a long time ago, but we're doing something different now. Do we have to hold a second RFC to officially over-rule the old RFC?: No. Consensus can change, and an RFC is not required to prove that the community's consensus has changed. However, even though having another RFC is technically optional, it might still be a good idea, especially if there is a current dispute.
How many RFCs are there?: As of 2024, there are usually about two RFCs started each day. Before 2021, there were about three new RFCs each day.
How many people comment in RFCs?: The number of respondents varies depending on the subject area and the amount of effort needed to answer the question (e.g., higher for popular articles, lower for highly technical questions). It's not unusual to see about five to 20 people participate in a discussion, with a possible range from zero responses to (rarely) several hundred.

Archives

For why RfC was created, see:
- Dispute resolution/Archive 1#Requests for comment

This page has archives. Sections older than 40 days may be auto-archived by .

Shortening and neutralizing RfCs

Is it permitted to take the initiative in editing another user's RfC to be neutral and concise or can the OP themselves only do so? ―Howard • 🌽³³ 16:25, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's permitted. I wouldn't edit war over it, and I'd be especially careful if people have already responded to make sure that their responses still make sense. I usually note that I've made the change and include the original version somewhere lower down for reference. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:30, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

thanks ―Howard • 🌽³³ 16:37, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Howardcorn33, if you are thinking about editing another user's RFC question, then I encourage you to read the FAQ at the top of this page first. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:22, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RfC Tag Help

I noticed that a source has come up repeatedly on Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard. I intend to copy/paste relevant formatting from RFC National Post and then put the result in the discussion topic I started.

As the RfC will propose adding a source to WP:RSPSOURCES with a tag (like what happened to the above source) should the topic be policy? Andwats (talk) 20:49, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I believe people normally categorize WP:RSP discussions by subject area, which means pol if it's a political magazine, sci if it's a scientific journal, etc. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:25, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

not sure if an RfC is necessary and how to frame it

On a page that covers the political views of a prominent figure, thers's been a lengthy discussion about adding a new section, consensus seemed to be leaning towards inclusion. An editor might be WP:SQS: Example: An editor refuses to accept a change unless some condition is complied with, but it is not a condition that has any basis in Wikipedia policies or guidelines. The underlying issue might be a disagreement on what actually constitutes "political views". This may be in good faith, I don't know, but the discussion has become repetitive, another editor and I are unable to reach a consensus with the opposing editor (others have stopped responding). I would like to get some fresh eyes on it, so I've been trying to write an RfC, but I don't know whether I should only summarize the opposite arguments (this condition should be met: yes or no), or mention the possible SQS issue too. Nor do I know if I should try a different way to resolve this dispute. Thanks for any advice, Poiutredsaa (talk) 23:28, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Poiutredsaa, hello. Have you been bold and edited the page yet? An RfC prior to an edit would be premature in my opinion. I'd advise starting small and building from there. Dw31415 (talk) 00:09, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I assume that the discussion in question is Talk:Political views of J. K. Rowling#adding section about Rowling and Asexual people; there was an earlier one at Talk:J. K. Rowling.

Katzrockso, do you feel like you all need help with that discussion? WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:54, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with @Dw31415 that a RfC is unnecessary, I appreciate @Poiutredsaa's extensive attempts to garner consensus for the edit, but I believe I said that whatever issues the section has are best addressed by editing it in the article at this point. If the other editor remains steadfast in their want to revert the edit, then a RfC may become necessary, but I hope it doesn't come to that. Katzrockso (talk) 07:43, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Dw31415 hi, thank you for clarifying this. I haven't edited the page yet, I assumed I had to gain consensus first, and the other editor said they would immediately revert it so it looked like the start of an edit war... However, if the right course of action is publishing that content and then maybe start an RfC, I can do so.

@WhatamIdoing you assume correctly, I didn't explicitly mention it because I thought it looked like I was starting an RfC here. In general, I've been feeling like we need help with that discussion for weeks.

@Katzrockso thank you for appreciating my efforts. I didn't understand you meant editing the section in the article, I thought you meant editing the draft. On that note, I've created a "sandbox" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Poiutredsaa/subpage_for_drafts) and posted a link to it in the talk page, but I think nobody saw it in that big discussion. Maybe we could take a look at it together and then I could publish the content, hoping an RfC doesn't become necessary. Poiutredsaa (talk) 15:46, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I edited it into the article per BRD. Katzrockso (talk) 16:07, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see what happens and hope for the best, Poiutredsaa (talk) 16:20, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

PinkNews article/dispute question, RfC a good idea?

The page mentions "if you are not sure if an RfC is necessary [...] ask on the talk page of this project" and before I do something wrong, I would rather just like to ask... There is a dispute currently on the PinkNews article (specifically in the Talk page) and I would like to ask whether an RfC would be the right way to resolve it, or one of the other dispute resolution methods (and if so, which, because the situation seems a bit complicated?) Thank you! ~2025-30168-55 (talk) 14:14, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, after a quick review, it appears that an RfC is appropriate. There are 3+ editors involved so you're past the third-opinion option. I noticed accusations of sockpuppet there and that your account was newly created and has focused on this. You might expect the opponents to the content to pursue a ban, but I wouldn't let that stop you if it's not true.

My recommendation is to frame the question narrowly, like:

Should the allegations of sexual assault by the PinkNews executives be included in the article?

Yes
No

Include some context and be sure to include the links to sources. Be sure to read WP:RFCBEFORE. You can even ask back here to review the draft. Dw31415 (talk) 14:56, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, it is true and several admins agree. See the case presented on ANI here [1] Snokalok (talk) 15:25, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. I see this comment: "I see no indication that the temporary account is connected to any other user." I think it's okay for @~2025-30168-55 to proceed with the RfC, but welcome a second opinion.

In either case @~2025-30168-55 should be on their best behavior. Post the question, !vote, and then trust the process. Being especially careful not to Wikipedia:Don't bludgeon the process Dw31415 (talk) 16:21, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Right, and then in the next sentence that admin says "However, their history as a legacy IP user suggests that this is someone who shouldn't be anywhere near American politics." indicating that they meant a named user, but that they too agree that it's the same IP. Snokalok (talk) 16:41, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. I don’t infer “legacy IP user” to mean more than that. I’m not sure it matters for the purpose of this discussion. Do you have any reason to object to an RFC? It sounds like there’s been discussion but not an RFC yet which would be the next step in dispute resolution. I know there are BLPCRIME issues but it seems a good faith discussion about the public figure exemption is reasonable. Dw31415 (talk) 16:50, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In the succeeding comment, that same admin says "I meant to make the point that they're not a new user, and have a history of pushing a right-wing POV in topics that attract right-wing POV pushers." referring to the IP evidence presented; and then Bushranger said "I should note that the issue of socking using TAs can be muddled, given how they're, well, temporary. But a user who has clearly previously edited based on behavior who insists they haven't is not a good look for them."

Look if they want to start an RFC I can't stop them but the fact that they very clearly are the same IP pretending not to be and refusing to drop the stick on something that editorial consensus including four admins (Ad Orientem protected the page the first time around) overwhelmingly ruled against them on while spitting threats of reports in every direction is to quote Bushranger, not a good look for them and in light of all that and their demands that consensus is not reached until they're personally satisfied, this just feels disruptively tendentious. Snokalok (talk) 17:12, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bad RFC votes

@Polygnotus has asked on my User_talk: page about Bad RFC !votes. It is related to their removal of information from WP:RFCBEFORE. I think that discussion should happen here. Here's how that phrase is being used in current RFCs:

Primerica:
- RFCBEFORE discussions: Talk:Primerica#COI Request Edit Feb. 2024 and Talk:Primerica#Discussion
- RFC: Talk:Primerica#RfC To Include Research Products
- Bad RFC vote from the editor who, in both of the RFCBEFORE discussions, opposed the RFC's proposal. RFCs exist to get more eyes on this kind of situation (low-traffic article, firm opposition by one editor, but the OP doesn't believe the opposition is correct).
Talk:Kuči (tribe)
- RFCBEFORE discussion: Talk:Kuči (tribe)#Request for Change of Origins
- RFC: Talk:Kuči (tribe)#RfC: Change of Origins proposal
- Bad RFC votes: Two editors say that the RFC is bad because the proposed addition to the article is too long for them to read, and another says "invalid RFC" followed by a classic "oppose" rationale (e.g., "refuted countless times", "not RS", "cherrypicked").
Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)
- RFCBEFORE discussion: Wikipedia talk:Notability (organizations and companies)#Guidance on lists of company products and services
- RFC: Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RFC on the notability of corporate goods and services
- Bad RFC vote claims forum shopping and obfuscation of actual purpose ("corporate services", but the apparent target is List of British Airways destinations and similar pages, which the OP has been unable to get deleted through other means so far).
Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not
- RFCBEFORE discussion: Either too many to count, or none, depending on how you define the terms. Four AFDs are linked at the top of the RFC. There is a discussion with the closer of the relevant RFC, but that was started immediately after the RFC.
- RFC: Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not#RfC on consensus of WP:DESTNOT: Broad or specific.
- Bad RFC vote from the OP of RFC #3, posted at a time when the !votes were solidly in opposition to that editor's own view
Avi Loeb
- RFCBEFORE discussion: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Avi Loeb / The Age of Disclosure, Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Is Avi Loeb a citable PRIMARY as an "established subject-matter expert" in any of the natural sciences? (and more)
- RFC: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: Avi Loeb
- The Bad RFC vote should probably be a vote to oppose blanket restrictions on citing this astrophysicist, rather than claiming there's something wrong with asking whether we should have blanket restrictions on citing him.

Basically, when I look at this, I see no clear-cut RFCBEFORE violations, and no "Bad RFC" votes that are accurately identify the absence of RFCBEFORE discussions (assuming that RFCBEFORE were mandatory, which it isn't). WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:42, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly are we trying to discuss? In which cases a bad rfc vote is valid? User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 21:03, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WAID tried to insert a new rule that says that you can't close bad RfCs. They got reverted by me. I asked them to have a normal conversation and then present our views to the community side by side, but instead they decided to post a huge wall of text with no context in which they misrepresent what happened, which gives them an unfair advantage. Polygnotus (talk) 21:28, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~ah, fair enough. I had been confused, i think the RFCBEFORE was a requirement? we should have a convo about that, instead of badrfc votes.~~

Polygnotus, you added this edit in July? [2] was there a convo about that line? User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 22:42, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bluethricecreamman Yeah, but I think it wasn't onwiki. But that was documenting existing practice, not the introduction of a new rule. Pretty sure I did it in response to a bad rfc being closed but I'd have to go back through my contribs to find it. Update: It was one of the RfCs on Talk:Canada that has been archived. Polygnotus (talk) 23:10, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding the example diff link. In case anyone else is interested, here is the archived RfC Talk:Canada/Archive 32#Which render of the coat of arms to use. This was an RfC opened by the closer of a previous, related RfC. Dw31415 (talk) 13:57, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly ancilliary to the remobal polygnotus tried, What about scenarios where someone attempts to open an rfc substantially similar to one that closes due to not getting the desired outcome? or if the previous rfc ended in no consensus?

there are also times when folks attempt to vote bad rfc when claiming an rfc question is loaded or biased? User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 21:03, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't "try" any removal; I noticed the insertion of a new rule without any discussion and reverted it because it is not an improvement (far from it).

I have seen many bad rfcs where a loaded question was asked, the wrong question was asked, a false dilemma was presented, there was no preceding attempts at discussion, et cetera. I have seen people open RfCs because they disagreed with the already existing consensus, which was just a waste of time because it confirmed the pre-existing consensus. I have also seen multiple RfCs where the need to have an RfC did no longer exist after the 3rd comment. Polygnotus (talk) 21:33, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@WhatamIdoing This is why I proposed first having a discussion, and presenting our views side by side. Now you have posted a wall of text, based on a false premise. So if this was an RfC this would be closed as a BADRFC with a misleading opening statement where BEFORERFC was not followed. The fact that you only managed to find 5 examples of !votes, not closures, you think are wrong proves my point; the people who close RfCs or vote badrfc are correct basically every time. Polygnotus (talk) 21:05, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2025_March_1#Wikipedia:BADRFC. While the PAGs need a hell of a lot of work, and I certainly am not volunteering to create order out of the chaos, it is pretty scary that one person can just unilaterally decide how Wikipedia works. Especially when RfCs make it way easier for bad actors to achieve their goals. Actually trying to convince people in a discussion is pretty difficult. But present people with 2 options when many exist, and they will choose one of the two. People in marketing have been exploiting this for decades at least. Polygnotus (talk) 22:15, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@WhatamIdoing, I suggest a clear proposal, like adding back your edit to start with. I think that’s a discussion worth having. @Polygnotus says your edit changed the policy rather than describing it. I think we would all benefit from his description of how your edit differs from current policy and practice. Dw31415 (talk) 22:38, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[3] seems to indicate Polygnotus added it as a valid way to end an rfc back in july. WAID added the edit about RFCBEFORE not being required sometime in november, which Polygnotus reverted.

it would have been better to have had an open convo about this from all parties? User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 22:47, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I asked them to, and instead they posted this without context. Not very nice imo. Polygnotus (talk) 22:48, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Dw31415 Currently, people close bad RfCs. This is in all cases that I have seen a good thing. Starting an RfC gives a huge advantage to whoever starts it, which is why some people love doing it.

When closing bad RfCs people cite for example If you are considering an RfC to resolve a dispute between editors, you should try first to resolve your issues other ways. Try discussing the matter with any other parties on the related talk page. If you can reach a consensus or have your questions answered through discussion, then there is no need to start an RfC.

WAID introduced a new rule which said: Are you trying to shut down someone else's RFC? "RFCBEFORE" good advice, but it's not required.. This is misleading, because the text clearly stated that it is required.

They also repeated this misinformation here, saying I removed "information" when I actually reverted the unilateral introduction of a new rule that would make POV-pushing way easier.

Disallowing closing unfairly worded RfCs, RfCs that present a false dilemma and RfCs that have no preceding discussion gives a major advantage to the side that started the RfC.

If WAID wants to introduce this new rule they should get consensus for it. But it is a terrible idea. Polygnotus (talk) 22:49, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Any changes to the RFC page should be vetted through the WP:CONSENSUS process. I support the reversion by Polygnotus. I do think the changes to WP:RFCBEFORE were not appropriate. We should require editors to follow RFCBEFORE. I disagree that its optional.4meter4 (talk) 22:45, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
disagree that RFCBEFORE is optional as well. Editors should not start RFCs out of nowhere. better to start with an open convo first, and only escalate to an RFC if the convo isn't leading to a clear consensus. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 22:48, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah the system we follow has been working for decades. First you talk. If 2 people fight, ask a 3rd opinion and start dispute resolution. If many people fight, maybe have an RfC.

But we don't just start RfCs for every minor thing without discussion. And we certainly do not prohibit the closing of RfCs because that is way too easy to abuse. Polygnotus (talk) 22:51, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

100% agree. There's also times where people start RFCs in bad faith. There is such a thing as abuse of process and we have to have ways of protecting the community when that happens. Plus ill formed RFCs pretty much never have any meaningful/actionable outcome and simply close with nothing substantive. It's a huge time suck on community resources when RFCBEFORE isn't followed.4meter4 (talk) 22:56, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

100% agree that RFCBEFORE should be followed. I don’t think I’ve seen any policy about closing an RfC that doesn’t though, like it’s not mentioned in the “ending an RfC” section. Are you advocating that involved editors can close RfC’s because in their judgement RFCBEFORE was not followed? Dw31415 (talk) 23:02, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am saying that we should not have a blanket ban on closing RfCs, and that is how WAIDs addition will be interpreted, as a blanket ban. Polygnotus (talk) 23:04, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An uninvolved editor should do the close. I'd say leave a message here at Talk:RFC and wait for an uninvolved admin to review and decide if an RFC needs to be prematurely closed for a failure to follow RFCBEFORE. Preferably it would be an admin making the call although I guess any editor technically could if they were not involved.4meter4 (talk) 23:11, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest I strongly object to a blanket ban on all closing of RfCs, but I haven't spent much time thinking about what I would consider acceptable.

I don't think we need an admin, we allow non-admin closures in other situations.

If some troll starts an RfC then I think anyone can just revert that. If a misguided newbie or POV pusher does it, and it is non-neutral, it leaves out important options or it is unnecessary then any somewhat experienced editor. Polygnotus (talk) 23:16, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

True. There isn't a one size fits all situations, which is why I think the guidelines are written like they currently are.4meter4 (talk) 23:18, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah often there isn't really a clearly defined good and bad; there are shades of grey. Generally speaking administrators are very experienced and smart, but I also know non-admin community members who are at least as smart and experienced. And if an admin hands in their mop that doesn't make them less capable of judging consensus than they were 1 second before. Polygnotus (talk) 23:25, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe this “should” sentence should be strengthened. I read this as good but not mandatory.

If you are considering an RfC to resolve a dispute between editors, you should try first to resolve your issues other ways

I think we should also be assuming positive intent, specifically that @WhatamIdoing was intending to describe current policy rather than change it. Dw31415 (talk) 23:49, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The road to hell...

But yes obviously we are all good-faith users here, even if we disagree on stuff sometimes.

It would be nice to have a section explaining exactly when to close and when not to close an RfC. Unfortunately, reality is slippery, and it is very difficult to write something to which there are no exceptions. I think you shouldn't be allowed to start an RfC without having a discussion first. Normal WP:DR options are open if its difficult to find someone to talk to. Polygnotus (talk) 23:53, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

agree, WhatamIdoing should provide input on what she thinks should be discussed and debated exactly User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 02:19, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bluethricecreamman, I don't think there's much to debate: As @Dw31415 noticed, RFCBEFORE (which is not a policy, BTW) says "should" and does not say "must". There are good reasons for that, and multiple discussions affirming that can be found in the archives for this talk page.

The problem I see is editors incorrectly claiming that "should" means "must" and that they are therefore entitled to end an RFC whose proposal they disagree with on some bureaucratic technicality. Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a game of Mother, May I?, and while a prior discussion is almost always the right thing to do, it's also not a good reason to end someone else's RFC, especially without discussion and especially if you might be perceived as part of what the FAQ at the top of this page calls the "loyal opposition". WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:11, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The PAGs (and information pages should describe reality, not be used to change it unilaterally without even an attempt at creating consensus.

So if you want to make the change you made you'll have to find consensus for it.

Wikipedia is not a game of Calvinball, where you can just add a few rules without telling anyone and no one can object.

The idea that everyone on planet Earth is following RFC2199 of the Internet Engineering Task Force is incorrect.

while a prior discussion is almost always the right thing to do, it's also not a good reason to end someone else's RFC, especially without discussion Yes it is in some cases; there are many RfCs in which the wrong question was asked, or a troll or new user starts them which results in a lot of wasted time. So it can be completely valid reason to stop an RfC.

Turning RfCs into an unstoppable weapon that cannot be countered is a terrible idea. And you wrote the FAQ at the top of this page. Polygnotus (talk) 03:48, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This comment may be a better example of the a relevant RFCBEFORE argument, adding it here in case it’s helpful later. Talk:Star Trek: Section 31#c-Adamstom.97-20250810121400-Meta Dw31415 (talk) 22:16, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's the opposite of an appropriate use of RFCBEFORE. That editor admits that there was a prior discussion; therefore, the RFCBEFORE recommendation to discuss it on the talk page was clearly fulfilled. WhatamIdoing (talk) 09:43, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm one of the editors whom WhatamIdoing is talking about, others are Grayfell, Alaexis, Alltan, Reywas92, :FOARP. I don't agree with WhatamIdoing's statement that what I said "... should probably be a vote to oppose blanket restrictions ...". Peter Gulutzan (talk) 22:53, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah its also not super cool to use people's words as an example of what not to do without even pinging them. Polygnotus (talk) 22:55, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is especially not cool to accuse me of engaging in “obfuscation” when I was up-front about what discussions prompted the RFC, and to accuse me of trying to delete a page that I have not actually proposed to delete. The OP appears to have mistaken me for another editor (probably Sunnaya343 who did actually propose to delete List of British Airways destinations). Charitably I think the OP was referring to the views of the Bad RFC voters, but that’s not what their words say. FOARP (talk) 04:01, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Peter Gulutzan, I thought about pinging people, but pinging exclusively people who represent one POV is a violation of Wikipedia:Canvassing (specifically "Vote-stacking: Posting messages to users selected based on their known opinions"). There's no simple solution here, but I think that following the guideline is a better choice than pinging a biased sample set. If we set a standard of always pinging people whose prior comments are mentioned or quoted, then we'll get a lot more canvassing (e.g., someone quoting all the people who share their views on infoboxes and then pinging them "because it's not cool to quote someone without pinging them" – and since they didn't quote anyone with the opposite view, then the discussion results are no longer representative of the community's POV). WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:18, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, when I look at this, I see no clear-cut RFCBEFORE violations, and no "Bad RFC" votes that are accurately identify the absence of RFCBEFORE discussions When I look at those !votes I see good faith users expressing valid concerns that WAID disagrees with.

@Grayfell: is correct. They wrote None of these sources are about Primerica, and the research put out by Primerica solely exists for promotional purposes, making this a naked PR exercise - which is exactly why a COI editor is so keen on including it here.
Two editors say that the RFC is bad because the proposed addition to the article is too long for them to read No they don't. @Mathglot: correctly points out the fact that the RFC is wasting peoples time. @Alaexis: says I'd suggest closing this rfc and doing some homework before initiating a new one. which is solid advice.
See FOARPs comment.
Bad RFC vote from the OP of RFC #3, posted at a time when the !votes were solidly in opposition to that editor's own view Why would FOARP not be allowed to express their opinion if they are in the minority at that point?
@Peter Gulutzan: writes I'm not !voting according to Chetsford's multiple-choice pigeon-holes though which should of course be allowed. You can't force people to have an opinion that exactly matches one of the RfC options. So it is not surprising they find the RfC bad when !voting their preferred outcome isn't even an option.

The fact that RFCBEFORE was not followed is not the only reason an RfC can be bad. A confusing opening statement can also be bad, or a false dilemma, or a non-neutral opening statement, unclear question or no preceding discussion, et cetera. Based on these 5 examples I see no reason to make it harder to shut down bad RfCs. This is just people expressing an opinion. Polygnotus (talk) 04:36, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Worst case scenario, someones bad rfc vote is discarded by the closer. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 04:53, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the point. Polygnotous has tried to elevate RFCBEFORE as a reason for opponents to forcibly end an RFC – and got reverted for their efforts. I wrote down the actual rule (RFCBEFORE is a very good idea, but opponents don't get to forcibly close an RFC over perceived failures), and Poly reverted it because they don't like the actual rule and apparently didn't know about any of the prior discussions.

This began because Poly turned up on my talk page instead of starting a discussion here (wonder why?), saying there are "an insane number of pointless RfCs" (evidence says no) and that they had "never seen someone falsely claim that an RFC was a BADRFC or that it didn't meet RFCBEFORE" (except, looking at their edit contributions, they participate in an RFC only about once every couple of months, so the fact that they personally haven't seen something doesn't prove anything). I provided here a list of 100% of the uses of "bad RFC" in all currently open RFCs.

That list does not support the claim that "bad RFC" !votes are primarily about RFCBEFORE. We do have bad RFCs, but the bad RFCs don't necessarily get "bad RFC" !votes, and the bad RFCs are mostly not RFCBEFORE failures. The use of "bad RFC" !votes is not exclusive to, or even significantly correlated with, the absence of an RFCBEFORE discussion. Additionally, whether a "bad RFC" !vote is a helpful or unhelpful response does not tell us whether or not RFCBEFORE is mandatory. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:33, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@WhatamIdoing That is rewriting history. You have added a new rule that will be interpreted as "You can't close RfCs started by other people". You know that when writing information pages you need to describe reality; you can't unilaterally add new rules without even attempting to form a consensus.

I wrote down the actual rule No, you wrote down what you would like reality to be, not what it is. Poly reverted it because they don't like the actual rule No, I don't like the fact that you are unilaterally adding new rules without an attempt to form a consensus behind them (and I wouldn't really care if it was a good idea but in this case it clearly was not).

This began because Poly turned up on my talk page instead of starting a discussion here (wonder why?) No need to wonder, I told you, but thanks for the implication of bad faith I guess.

I provided here a list of 100% of the uses of "bad RFC" in all currently open RFCs. Thanks for doing that you proved my point. There is no need to make the change you did, and you demonstrated that by providing evidence.

That list does not support the claim that "bad RFC" !votes are primarily about RFCBEFORE. But you have claimed that, not me. I am not sure why you wrote that.

You wrote I see no clear-cut RFCBEFORE violations, and no "Bad RFC" votes that are accurately identify the absence of RFCBEFORE discussions while I wrote: The type of RfCs that should be closed are (in a very large majority of cases, but not always) started by inexperienced people or POVpushers who disagree with the consensus. So you appear to have misread or misinterpreted something. Polygnotus (talk) 03:57, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why shouldn't an inexperienced editor or a POV pusher be allowed to have the community tell them they're wrong? Short of blocking them, there are few options as effective at resolving a dispute and preventing ongoing edit warring as 10 people showing up at an RFC to say "Yup, you're wrong". WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:42, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@WhatamIdoing I don't think they shouldn't be allowed to have the community tell them they're wrong. I worry that they will waste everyones time and I worry about the starter of the RfC having a major unfair advantage since they decide on the framing and the options and all that.

If we wanted to we could both easily write an RfC that nudges people in the direction we want, without openly canvassing. Since RfCs are so demanding I think they should be used sparingly, after trying the other options. Polygnotus (talk) 05:46, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RFCs aren't that demanding. We're getting about twice the level of participation than we used to. We don't want an RFC for "every little thing" (see also the gentle restriction on having more than one or two RFCs open at a time), and we do use behavioral rules like TBANs to rein in people who repeatedly cause problems with RFCs, but overall, "wasting time" isn't something we need to worry about these days. (If it's a waste of your time, then by all means, quit volunteering to get personally notified about every single RFC. There's no need to do that to yourself.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:36, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@WhatamIdoing But can we flip it on its head? RfCs are used to attract attention right? Let's say we do the same, but instead of using the RfC format it is just a normal discussion. By adding the template people are alerted to the existence of the discussion.

To me, that would be infinitely preferable. It fixes the problem that one side gets to frame the debate (as much as is possible, the topic starter will always have a slight advantage but that is compensated by the person who reacts getting to play defense).

What do you think about that idea? Is there something about the RfC format that you think is superior to a normal discussion? And do you see downsides of the RfC format compared to a normal discussion (perhaps the same ones I see, or different ones)?

see also the gentle restriction on having more than one or two RFCs open at a time I think you are referring to Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment#Multiple_simultaneous_RfCs_on_one_page. we do use behavioral rules like TBANs to rein in people who repeatedly cause problems with RFCs Maybe, I dunno, never seen that as far as I can remember.

If it's a waste of your time, then by all means, quit volunteering to get personally notified about every single RFC. But then how would I notice the problem? Also I only got a few invites, there is probably something in the bot that prevents spamming (I haven't read the code). Polygnotus (talk) 08:35, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RFCs are supposed to be ordinary discussions that have an advertising mechanism. There isn't anything that can be legitimately called "the RfC format" (though there are some suggestions, mostly ignored, at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Example formatting). All of this ===Subsection=== and Option 1/2/3/4/5 stuff has been larded on during the last 5–10 years by individuals who seem to be looking for something more bureaucratic.

That said, if you're going to advertise a discussion to others, there needs to be something written at the destination, and that something needs to give them some idea of what to talk about.

(I believe that the bot has a maximum number of invitations that it will send for any given RFC, so "all/infinite" means something closer to "leftovers".) WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:20, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this is the fundamental difference in our approach; it seems like you are talking about how things should be (in your view) RFCs are supposed to be ordinary discussions and I am more focused how things are (in my view) one side gets to frame the debate and there is a specific RfC format that is more akin to !voting than a normal free-form discussion would be, and On Wikipedia we pretend to !vote not vote, and while that is in some senses not very serious, I do think the idea behind it (that a simple votecount is not enough but we need to care about the strength of peoples arguments) is very very very important. So a move towards having an RfC for every little question someone might have sounds like a terrible idea to me.

So of course I strongly agree with you that RFCs are supposed to be ordinary discussions that have an advertising mechanism. There isn't anything that can be legitimately called "the RfC format" (emphasis mine) but in practice, unfortunately, RfCs are a great way to sidestep our normal consensus-forming process for a POV pusher. This is not just my opinion, it is also what I observe.

Of course you don't look at it that way, but you are not the kind of person who POV pushes on Wikipedia. You gotta put on your bad people glasses.

But hypothetically and theoretically, if we wanted to for fun, we could easily come up with 20 tricks to manipulate an RfC that wouldn't work on a normal freeform discussion. Getting to choose which question to ask and how and which options to present is a huge advantage.

I don't think RfCs are a great way to form consensus because people read the first post, skip the rest, and add their response at the bottom. Neither of us does that, but some people do.

I know that you wrote in the FAQ near the top of this page that Wikipedians are rarely swayed by a non-neutral question. but in my experience even very smart people are not immune to subtle manipulation, and it is very very difficult to ignore social proof. Polygnotus (talk) 00:08, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Like I wrote on your talkpage, it would be cool to have an RfC where 2 people present their POV side by side. That would make it more fair.

So in that case it is not one side doing the framing, which I believe is the source of the inequality. Polygnotus (talk) 08:40, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Example formatting#Pro and con. It has only been used rarely, though I've proposed it several times. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:22, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That can be turned into a template. I think it should be required to use. So again, it sounds like we agree that this is a good idea. Polygnotus (talk) 00:16, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But it isn't always pro and con. The one and only time I started an RfC, trying to summarize the options that had been expressed in long RFCBEFORE discussions, there were at least three distinct views. FactOrOpinion (talk) 02:38, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. The strength of an RfC is a simple choice, with few options.

In a situation where there are dozens of possible paths forward the RfC, in its current form, is usually not the best way to form a good decision.

Often when I waste a bit of time thinking about a problem a binary turns into a dozen ways to deal with something. Polygnotus (talk) 08:19, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If the RFC reaches the point of a normal, formal close, a BADRFC !vote is the same as a vote for "do nothing, for [reason]." (It also expresses a preference for an early / snow close but if it reaches the point where a closer is assessing arguments then that obviously failed.) In that case what the closer should do is assess the strength of the reason given; and, if the !vote points out something that might have biased or tainted the RFC, the closer should take that into consideration when assessing consensus, too (eg. an egregiously non-neutral RFC statement might be a valid reason to give less weight to numerical superiority than usual, like with canvassing.) Ultimately it can be handled the same way we handle any other statement during an RFC - the closer takes it into account and weighs or discounts it based on the strength of its argument coupled with how effectively that argument seems to have convinced the community. We could maybe have an essay with some loose guidelines surrounding it but I don't think it needs any special policy considerations. --Aquillion (talk) 14:55, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think it may also be a vote to suggest the rfc doesnt answer the question the OP wants either, or an implicit vote for no consensus.

An improperly laid out RFC may go all the way to close, but a closer should be allowed to understand if the premise of the rfc was wrong or any number of exceptions that can happens with rfcs. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 14:58, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Aquillion on this. If there is a flaw with an RFC, that flaw can be stated and taken into account by the closer. Trying to codify this in policy is just CREAP. Blueboar (talk) 15:05, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you want an example of a Bad RfC, look at Political views of JK Rowling, where the RfC didn't relate to the substance of the dispute or RFCBEFORE Katzrockso (talk) 20:24, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For that article, one always has to ask "Which one?"

Talk:Political views of J. K. Rowling#RfC about holocaust denial seems to be the most recent. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:20, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that was the one I was referring to, sorry. I was on my phone and didn't want to navigate to the particular place on the talk page to figure out the title. Katzrockso (talk) 01:59, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the example. Within 13 days this was closed after overwhelming "No" or "Bad RfC" !votes. The question raised here, I think, is whether an involved editor (or some other party) should have quickly closed as a "Bad RfC". I think, in an ideal world, yes, but in the reality of scarce admin time, trying to layer in some form of RfC Summary judgement is not practical. (Just noting again that @Poly has graciously restored the revert). Dw31415 (talk) 02:19, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that letting that discussion go on for a bit ultimately hurt anything. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:41, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

...but did waste the time of >20 people; exactly my point.

Kinda scary that if you just have enough money your political views become worthy of a Wikipedia article. Polygnotus (talk) 08:34, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are you starting an RFC? This is good advice, and you'll be more successful if you follow it.

Are you trying to shut down someone else's RFC? "RFCBEFORE" good advice, but it's not required.

Here’s the reverted text in case it’s helpful to the discussion:
Dw31415 (talk) 17:21, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
yes, i would not support this language, would like more forceful language to make sure the community pulse on this is considered before an RFC. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 19:05, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are a whole lot of words here that seem to come down to the simple question (at least the only one of broad interest on this talk page): Should RFCBEFORE be mandatory?

The status quo ante bellum version of the page says, "If you are considering an RfC to resolve a dispute between editors, you should try first to resolve your issues other ways." This is the principle being called RFCBEFORE. The word "should" technically means RFCBEFORE is optional, but I think most people would interpret it as saying unless you think your situation is special, you must do it. (Because otherwise, there's hardly any point to having these words in the page).

Recently, WAID strengthened the technical optional interpretation, adding words that specifically say not having followed RFCBEFORE is not a reason to end an RfC immediately as an invalid RfC. That addition was then removed.

We ought to discuss whether RFCBEFORE is mandatory, and consequently whether "should" is the right word and whether WAID's further interpretation is good. I think that ought to be done in a new section of this talk page, though, as many people who would want to weigh in that will not make it far enough into this section to find this simple question. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 18:34, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well said. I agree with that summation, as well as the suggestion to make this the focus in a new section or subsection. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 18:46, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would be strenuously opposed to making RFCBEFORE mandatory (and I'm under the impression that this has been discussed and settled at length?) Sometimes the context that requires a question is obvious. More generally, I feel that rigid "red line" policies (you absolutely always must do XYZ) are usually a terrible idea and should be reserved for the rare situations where they're absolutely necessary. They derail disputes and discussions by having people arguing over procedure rather than the actual underlying dispute. If you think an RFC has flaws, weighing in to discuss those flaws is useful; trying to unilaterally close the entire thing because of red-line policy XYZ rarely helps, especially if someone then re-opens it. Making a red-line policy encourages people to do the latter, which we should not do. Basically, "try to do XYZ, in general" is valuable because it leads to people making reasonable arguments that can be weighed against each other; someone else can say "ah but ABC applies and outweighs it" and this is good because at that point you're actually touching on the context-specific dispute rather than trying to use policy like a bludgeon. "You absolutely must do XYZ" is bad because it leads to arguments becoming solely about maneuvering to try and establish that condition XYZ applies, without regard for the actual underlying context. --Aquillion (talk) 20:02, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am a strong supporter of the principle of RFCBEFORE… but I too would oppose making it mandatory. It is extremely good advice, but no more. Blueboar (talk) 22:07, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Blueboar Yeah unfortunately the addition will lead to the situation where you can never close or revert another person's RfC. So its not about making RFCBEFORE mandatory; it is about preventing POV pushers and new users from gaining a force multiplier where they can waste the time of 20 people instead of 1 or 2. Polygnotus (talk) 04:00, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you lost me. If it's not about making RFCBEFORE mandatory, how do you propose to prevent POV pushers and new users from gaining that force multiplier? I understood your earlier arguments to say that it should be acceptable to close an RfC discussion before any discussion has taken place because RFCBEFORE was not followed. Isn't that just making RFCBEFORE mandatory? Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 05:15, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah this is why I was hoping to have a 1 on 1 conversation first, and then present our views in a (more) coherent matter to the entire community.

Like all human communication, this stuff is layered.

The simplest layer is that WAID is introducing a new rule to prevent people from closing RfCs for not following RFCBEFORE. Problem is that people don't actually read PaGs and essays, they use them as weapons in discussions. So adding something like they did will be perceived as a blanket ban on closing RfCs, and will be used as such.

The second layer is our underlying motivations. WAID wrote: No, I made a frustrated move to write what the rule actually is, and has always been, in language clear enough that it couldn't be mistaken by people trying to shut down an RFC over the fear that they're going to lose, and got reverted by you.[4] So their goal is to stop people from shutting down an RfC they fear they are going to lose. My underlying motivation is that I want people to be able to shut down bad RfCs, because I know that using an RfC gives an enormous advantage to those who start the RfC. I don't worry about people shutting down an RfC for fear of losing it (I have never seen that happen) but I do worry about newbies or POV pushers wasting enormous amounts of community time and framing every discussion.

If I get to decide what an RfC is about it is pretty easy for me to manipulate the outcome (even unintentionally, which is why polls often reflect the views of the poller more than that of the pollee). Polygnotus (talk) 05:42, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The simplest layer is that you introduced a new rule in July to permit editors to shut down any RFC they wanted, by claiming that RFCBEFORE was "not followed". Adding something like you did would be perceived as a blanket authorization for anyone, without limitation and therefore including WP:INVOLVED opponents, to close RFCs that they don't like – always, of course, from the most common of motivations by editors objecting to an RFC, namely fear that if the other editors gets to decide what an RFC is about, then it's pretty easy for them to manipulate the outcome and then the "wrong" (namely the complainant's) side will "lose".

Here's the archive for July. I see no comments from you in it about your change to this page, or in fact, any edit to this talk page ever, until August of this year. Funny how I'm supposed to re-discuss a non-change that is supported by multiple past discussions when you didn't think that any discussion was necessary for your first-ever edit to this page. The Talk:Canada RFC discussion you alluded to above is just you saying that you want the RFC withdrawn and that you believe that RFCBEFORE authorizes you to do so; literally none of the other 10 editors in that discussion mention RFCBEFORE or changing this page at all. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:02, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@WhatamIdoing you introduced a new rule No, information pages are used to describe reality. You disagree with the way things are going, so you want to introduce a new rule, without even attempting to get consensus for it. to permit editors to shut down any RFC they wanted That wasn't the goal of course, and that wouldn't work if there is simply a link to a preceding discussion.

if the other editors gets to decide what an RFC is about, then it's pretty easy for them to manipulate the outcome We both know that that is the case right? Or do you not agree with that basic fact?

Funny how I'm supposed to re-discuss a non-change You are not. But like I explained, your change was not a non-change, was not a description of reality but how you believe reality should be and would lead to people (who don't read such pages but use them as weapons) to get an unfair advantage over others.

The Canada discussion is irrelevant, I think it was the reason why I looked at that page but I am not even sure about that, it was quite a while ago. Polygnotus (talk) 06:09, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It was a non-change. I challenge you to find any discussion in this page's archives that says RFCBEFORE is mandatory, or that it's okay for you to close your opponent's RFC. It might be enlightening for you to do that search. Maybe you'd learn something about what the actual rules are. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:27, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@WhatamIdoing I disagree that it was a non-change. any discussion in this page's archives How is that relevant? It is about how something is used in practice right?

It might be enlightening for you to do that search. Maybe you'd learn something about what the actual rules are You wrote most of 'em. But that doesn't mean that every idea you have is a good one. And in this case it was a bad idea and you got reverted. Polygnotus (talk) 06:35, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are you actually asking me how the prior discussions at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment might be relevant for what editors believe the contents of Wikipedia:Requests for comment should be? Where else does one expect to find information about the consensus for this page's contents? WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:38, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If we are talking about how things are done, in reality, then it is irrelevant if we can find discussion about potential rules. Perhaps there was never a rule, and people just did things one way for thousands of years. Then you wanted to introduce a rule (although you refuse to provide evidence that there is a problem).

If people round here have always driven on the left side of the street, then finding a rule about that is irrelevant. Its just the convention. Saying "ha! you can't find a rule that says that people in the UK have to drive on the left" doesn't really work. Polygnotus (talk) 06:42, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Having an opponent end the RFC about their dispute has never been an accepted behavior. Sure, sometimes people will say, "Eh, wrong person to do it, but no great harm done", so they won't revert it, but there is not one experienced editor who would look at these facts:

You voted in an RFC at Talk:Canada against including a coat of arms
That RFC closed against your POV
The first RFC's closer started a second RFC to determine which image to use

and say "You know what would be really the best, lowest-drama thing to do here? If Polygnotous reverted the second RFC's creation because he disagreed with adding the image at all." WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:28, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and that Canada discussion is extremely relevant. There is no possible interpretation of your edits that day, which involve you:

scolding the RFC's OP for "failing" to follow RFCBEFORE (even though it was a follow-on from a previous discussion/RFC, so RFCBEFORE is arguably fulfilled) both on their talk page and at the article's talk page;
removing the new RFC tag;
changing this page to say that it's okay for you to remove the new RFC tag;
reverting the closing statement on the prior RFC, which had been closed as support when you voted oppose; and
arguing some more with the new RFC's OP

as being anything other than the Canada discussion being extremely relevant to your undiscussed change to this page. You made almost no other edits that day, and these were all back to back to back. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:37, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@WhatamIdoing You are hiding behind the Canada thing to muddy the waters and avoid what we are talking about. This discussion is already way too long and confusing, and you seem determined to write a novel. That is a waste of everyones time. Polygnotus (talk) 06:39, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Showing that you abused this page earlier this year to game a dispute, and that you're trying to make sure this page doesn't clearly reject your gaming efforts in the future, is not my idea of something that's "too long and confusing" for other editors to understand. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:41, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but if it is abuse to edit PaGs and information pages to reflect how we think they should be, then you are the worst offender in the history of Wikipedia, right? You have spent a significant amount of time working on PaGs and the like.

So I can frame that as you trying to improve a page, or I can make a bad faith assumption like you are doing and describe it as gaming efforts. Just like nominating BADRFC and then editing the information page to introduce a new rule without consensus behind it.

I think you did that in good-faith, even though I disagree with you, like I added missing information in good faith.

Using ad hominems, ignoring my requests to have a 1 on 1 and posting here, and getting angry when people don't agree with you does not make much sense to me. Polygnotus (talk) 06:47, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Editing this page is not abuse.

Editing this page to make it say that your own immediately previous action is supported by this page is abuse. It might be a good-faith, my-best-effort kind of abuse, but it's still abusive. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:57, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Giraffedata Sorry I forgot to ping. Polygnotus (talk) 05:48, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that he'd prefer to have a straight answer to his question, rather than a ping.

For example, "Yes, actually, I do think RFCBEFORE should be mandatory, and I think that anyone at all should be allowed to remove an RFC template if, in their personal subjective opinion, there was an insufficient discussion of the subject". Or "Yes, I think that if the phrasing of the RFC question wasn't discussed in advance, then anyone should be allowed to remove the RFC template". Or "What I really think is that inexperienced editors should be required to have extensive pre-RFC discussions about both the subject and the phrasing of any RFC question, and that they should just accept it if one editor tells them they're all wrong and not try to ask the rest of the community whether that one editor is correct". Or "Hmm, no, on second thought, maybe it shouldn't actually be mandatory, but what I really object to is anyone being told that it's not mandatory, because a lot of people are fundamentally lazy, so if they suspect that it's not technically mandatory, then they will be less likely to do it". Or whatever your answer is. But an answer that actually answers his question, and that probably means an answer involving either the word "yes" or the word "no". WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:57, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@WhatamIdoing But you still don't understand my POV.

I don't actually know for sure if I think that RFCBEFORE should always be mandatory (because I am a firm believer in exceptions). I know that RfCs get closed for not following it, but I am not even sure what the rule should be in an ideal world.

And I don't necessarily think that anyone should be able to remove RfC templates in all situations. My thoughts are far more nuanced than you are giving me credit for.

So the answer wouldn't be a simple 'yes' or 'no', it would be 'it depends'. For example, when its just a COI editor trying to promote an MLM then I wouldn't have minded if someone removed the RfC template. Same with a troll.

In other cases, I think people should prefer other ways of getting attention that are less impactful on others, and use those first if possible. But I also explained that in the example of you just wanting to get some peoples opinions about a topic that I would be fine with you using the template.

What I do not want is clearly defined: I do not want the baddies to have an advantage by starting a bunch of RfCs that are non-neutral/ask the wrong question et cetera and that no one can stop them.

What I do want is far less clear. Some equilibrium. I want the person who starts an RfC to not have a massive advantage, but to make it more fair. Polygnotus (talk) 07:08, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(I believe the median number of responses to an RFC recently has been 9.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:43, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, but you ignore the request for the statistics that actually matter in this discussion:

How many valid RfCs do you think are incorrectly closed by people citing RFCBEFORE
Can you give any examples of good RfCs where people !voted badrfc incorrectly

You ignored the first question, and in response to the second question you provided 5 links, none of which led to an RfC being closed, and none of which were actually incorrect.

So if you can't or refuse to show that there is an actual need to add this new rule, then its just instruction creep. Polygnotus (talk) 05:58, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, and I don't think it makes any difference about whether we require RFCBEFORE or whether we permit opponents of an RFC's proposal to close the OP's RFC. Since you're the one who thinks this would be important, maybe you'd like to collect that information.
I gave five examples of "Bad RFC" !votes. I'd say that most of them are incorrect, and that the incorrectness is mostly unimportant.

The reason that the explanation (it is not "a rule") is needed is to stop opponents from threatening to close RFCs when they have (as a biased and involved party to the dispute) no business doing that. NB that threatening is a problem. Actual closes are not required to cause problems.

And, yes, sometimes RFCs do need to be yanked. I have done it myself, as have all the long-time regulars for the RFC process. But if you're going to "clerk" RFCs, you have to:

be self-aware enough to recuse yourself from any discussion where your views are strong, or might be perceived to be strong (even if that perception is incorrect),
limit yourself to the smallest step possible (e.g., fixing problems that can be fixed; offering to help the OP write a different question),
see how people are perceiving your words and actions (something you unfortunately failed to do in the Talk:Canada RFC – the OP's comments about being unfairly vilified were because of your comments, and while I know you didn't intend to sound so harsh, it's not a completely unreasonable perception), and
let someone else handle RFCs where you might be considered "involved" due to prior comments (e.g., in the Talk:Canada RFC, you voted against including the coat of arms on 12 June 2025, and then, after the RFC had been closed against your position, told the editor trying to implement then then-close that it was a bad RFC and failed RFCBEFORE on 31 July 2025. A proper response in that circumstance would be either saying that you opposed this and so aren't going to help implement it, or to seek help here – and definitely not to edit this page less than 10 minutes later to change this page to assert that you have the right to close your opponent's RFC).

I direct your attention to Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines policy, especially the bit that says "Editing a policy to support your own argument in an active discussion may be seen as gaming the system, especially if you do not disclose it when making the edits." This isn't a policy page, but the principle is the same. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:24, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Since you want to introduce a new rule, you should collect that information and present it to the community to attempt to get consensus for it.
I disagree that those badrfc votes are incorrect. Since those are opinions of people, and not facts, it is weird to say they are incorrect.

The reason that the explanation (it is not "a rule") I agree that it is not a rule, but what I am saying is that will people use it as such. People use PaGs and information pages as weapons, not as good advice.

The reason that the explanation (it is not "a rule") is needed is to stop opponents from threatening to close RFCs when they have (as a biased and involved party to the dispute) no business doing that. NB that threatening is a problem. Actual closes are not required to cause problems. Do you have statistics about how many times people have threatened to shut down an RfC?

Like I explained above, the Canada thing is irrelevant.

Information pages are supposed to describe reality. If we want to generate stories from data points we can talk about nominating BADRFC and then editing the information page to introduce a new rule without consensus behind it, but that is probably not very productive. Polygnotus (talk) 06:33, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, people do use pages like this as weapons. So – why did you try to hand opponents of an RFC a weapon that would make it possible for them to prevent anyone else from seeing the RFC question? One of the things we need RFCs for is so that an editor can get help in a WP:Walled garden or when they've been confronted by a WP:OWNER. Your edit was a big gift to POV pushers who don't want anyone else to find out what they've been doing to an article. Someone complains on the talk page? No big deal; just shout them down. They start an RFC? No big deal; Poly says you can claim RFCBEFORE failures and shut it down. This is not functional, and we should not do that.
You did, so that's at least one.
In the Canada thing. So it's relevant.
This is reality. The reality is that you shouldn't have ended "the Canada thing". That was bad behavior and WP:GAMING on your part. You could have asked the OP nicely to withdraw the RFC for a bit, because you expected someone to object to the prior RFC's close. You could have dropped an SOS message on this page. You could have given a good rationale for choosing "none of the above". But you shouldn't have ended your opponent's RFC, and you doubly shouldn't have edited this page less than 10 minutes later to say that your actions were good.

WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:47, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

why did you try to hand opponents of an RFC a weapon that would make it possible for them to prevent anyone else from seeing the RFC question? That is not what I am trying to do. In my view, your edit makes it way too unbalanced and easy for one side. What I want is an equilibrium. If you have suggestions on how to reach that I am all ears. Your edit was a big gift to POV pushers No, this is an information page, it describes reality. It is not a policy page. And you can't just shout RFCBEFORE like a magic spell. If there actually is a preceding discussion then people can just point to that.

This is a tried and true tactic, falsely claiming bad faith and posting about it in multiple parts of a discussion, forcing the other person to defend themselves in multiple places. But I already explained above why you are wrong. So just read that. If you actually want to understand the situation over there you'd have to read the entire history of that page, and then you can understand I did nothing wrong.

And I already pointed out what you shouldn't have done. And that allegations of GAMING are a bit rich coming from you in this context. Polygnotus (talk) 06:53, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not involved in any disputes over any RFCs, so how could I be GAMING anything? (Trying an WP:OWNING accusation next time; since I'm one of the all-time top editors for the RFC process and your first edit here was just a couple of months ago, that has a much higher likelihood of sounding believable, at least if people aren't paying much attention.)

I'm not sure why you think an RFD in March about a newly created shortcut (which was not about pre-RFC discussions; it was about it being confusing) has anything to do with an edit in November about whether it's technically mandatory to have a pre-RFC discussion. You'd be able to build a better case if you complained that on the same day that I added the facts about pre-RFC discussions not being mandatory, I also reverted your undiscussed and incorrect claim that the alleged absence of pre-RFC discussions is a good reason for anyone to shut down someone else's RFC.

Having pre-RFC discussions be recommended but not mandatory is the equilibrium. RFCs are supposed to be open to editors who have a question that they want to lay before the community. RFCs are not supposed to be limited to people who can (for example) get permission from an article's owner that they're allowed to ask the community a question, or (for another example) higher traffic talk pages, but editors on unwatched pages can't use it because there's nobody else there to have a pre-RFC discussion with.

Being able to start an RFC whenever you want, to ask whatever question you want is not giving a massive advantage to the person who starts an RFC. If a person asks a question that you believe is unnecessary (something that RFCBEFORE is concerned about), then I suggest to you that maybe it's not actually unnecessary. The OP (not you) may have needed to be reassured that the answer they'd already been given really was correct. They may have needed to try one last time to be convinced that Wikipedia really did reject their idea. They may have even needed to write a non-neutral question, so that they could see that Wikipedia's response to "'Shall we have picture A, which is clearly superior, or Picture B, in which case, every time someone looks at the page, a child will cry?" really did get the "wrong" response from the community, even under circumstances that were unfairly favorable to their proposal.

If the person asks what we think is a stupid question, then the community will answer them, and the OP will have to take the reputational hit. If they persist long enough, they may even end up TBANned or BLOCKed. But that's unrelated to whether RFCBEFORE was followed. You can have a prior discussion and still ask a stupid question.

BTW, RFCBEFORE means "Hey, I think we should use Picture A in the infobox because it's better than Picture B". RFCBEFORE does not mean "Let's all talk about how to word the RFC question about which picture to use in the infobox, so we can make sure that it's fair and neutral and sensible and necessary and so forth". RFCBEFORE doesn't protect you from badly written RFC questions. Its main hope is merely to get people's questions answered through other methods (almost all of which are faster than an RFC), not to make the RFC questions be properly written.

I see above that you say you don't want to make RFCBEFORE mandatory. Good; we are agreed. Now: Do you mind telling people that RFCBEFORE isn't mandatory? Or is it meant to be a secret? WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:26, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We keep going further away from the topic, and if we keep posting giant walls of text like this it is very unlikely to help anyone.

I'm not involved in any disputes over any RFCs You sure? how could I be GAMING anything Well you can figure that one out. Trying an WP:OWNING accusation I am not here to try accuse you of anything to see what sticks. I think you made an edit in good faith I disagree with. You have assumed bad faith a bunch of times but that only distracts from what we were talking about.

I also reverted your undiscussed and incorrect claim that the alleged absence of pre-RFC discussions is a good reason for anyone to shut down someone else's RFC. But I am not making the claim that that is a good reason. I observed that that is how things are done on Wikipedia, and added it to the list to reflect reality.

I'm not sure why you think an RFD in March about a newly created shortcut (which was not about pre-RFC discussions; it was about it being confusing) has anything to do with an edit in November about whether it's technically mandatory to have a pre-RFC discussion. That is not what I am saying.

You'd be able to build a better case You still don't understand. I am not interested in "building cases", unless they are Fractal Design, I am interested in ensuring that RfCs cannot be abused more than they already are.

if you complained that on the same day But how would I even know? I don't have every PaG and information page on my watchlist, and I rarely look at them. I also don't have the psychic abilities required to know when a change on a PaG or information page may become relevant in the future.

Having pre-RFC discussions be recommended but not mandatory is the equilibrium. I don't think the current state of affairs is perfect. I think it is currently very easy for a POV pusher to waste a lot of time of people, and I think it is very easy to subtly (or not) nudge people in a direction.

RFCs are not supposed to be limited to people who can (for example) get permission from an article's owner that they're allowed to ask the community a question Well articles shouldn't have owners, and you shouldn't have to ask people permission to start an RfC. On that we agree. But I believe that, because there are few restrictions on starting one, we also shouldn't add new restrictions on closing one, especially without consensus behind it. I have never seen an RfC closed for invalid reasons as far as I can remember.

Being able to start an RFC whenever you want, to ask whatever question you want is not giving a massive advantage to the person who starts an RFC. This is something we disagree on. I think it is, because I have seen situations in which people (intentionally or not) asked the wrong question in an RfC and subtly or not so subtly guided people towards the answer they wanted. I agree that people may need answers to questions that seem obvious to me.

But that's unrelated to whether RFCBEFORE was followed. You can have a prior discussion and still ask a stupid question. Yeah that is exactly my point. You seem very focused on RFCBEFORE, but I think it would be more interesting to have a wider discussion about when and when not to close an RfC.

RFCBEFORE does not mean "Let's all talk about how to word the RFC question about which picture to use in the infobox, so we can make sure that it's fair and neutral and sensible and necessary and so forth Agreed.

RFCBEFORE doesn't protect you from badly written RFC questions Agreed. I have seen at least one RfC that could be closed by the second or third comment; I think that RFCBEFORE is more a protection against people unnecessarily opening RfCs when a normal talkpage discussion would do fine.

On Wikipedia we pretend to !vote not vote, and while that is in some senses not very serious, I do think the idea behind it (that a simple votecount is not enough but we need to care about the strength of peoples arguments) is very very very important. So a move towards having an RfC for every little question someone might have sounds like a terrible idea to me.

I see above that you say you don't want to make RFCBEFORE mandatory. Good; we are agreed. Now: Do you mind telling people that RFCBEFORE isn't mandatory? Or is it meant to be a secret? I think that adding text that will be interpreted as: "if someone tries to shut down your RfC just revert them: they can never close your RfC." is a bad idea. And I think that that is how your edit will be interpreted by the people who use PaGs and information pages as weapons. So I am not really objecting to the actual phrasing, I am objecting to writing something that will be used that way. Hope that makes sense, Polygnotus (talk) 07:50, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll show you every page in the Wikipedia namespace on my watchlist:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joanne Chang
Wikipedia:Interceptor
Wikipedia:NEWCOMERTASKS
Wikipedia:Requests for comment
Wikipedia:TASKSCENTER
Wikipedia:USync
Wikipedia:WIKIEDITOR
Wikipedia:WikiProject AI Tools

Polygnotus (talk) 08:02, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are you starting an RFC? This is good advice, and you'll be more successful if you follow it.

Are you trying to shut down someone else's RFC? "RFCBEFORE" good advice, but it's not required.

Yes, I am focused on RFCBEFORE. Would you like to know why? Because the undiscussed bad edit you made to this page was specifically about RFCBEFORE, and the truthful text box you removed from RFCBEFORE was specifically about RFCBEFORE.

IMO nobody should shut down any RFC by claiming a failure of RFCBEFORE, because RFCBEFORE is not mandatory. However, there are other, valid, non-RFCBEFORE reasons to end an RFC early, and there's always the option of politely asking the OP to voluntarily end an RFC. Many people who start an RFC are quite cooperative about such suggestions, especially if they're inexperienced with the RFC process and you're offering a way to solve their problem. WhatamIdoing (talk) 09:57, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for outdenting.

IMO nobody should shut down any RFC by claiming a failure of RFCBEFORE, because RFCBEFORE is not mandatory. I am aware that you think that, you have repeated it a few times. I would be far more interested in learning why you think the system of starting small with a talkpage discussion, and then scaling up (e.g. 3O, noticeboard, RfC) is such a bad idea. And your response to my idea of having a system whereby one can attract attention to a discussion without having to use the RfC format. And my idea of having RfCs where 2 people can present their POV side by side, which is intended to make RfCs more fair.

Reasonable people can disagree about such minor things, even if both sides of the debate are able to count.

there's always the option of politely asking the OP to voluntarily end an RFC I already responded to that. Now if people want to understand our conversation they have to read two pages instead of one. Polygnotus (talk) 10:01, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Might I playfully suggest the threshold for RFCBEFORE in this discussion has been well surpassed. I suggest an RfC to include the reverted text. Dw31415 (talk) 13:09, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We decided to split the income from the novel, but when the film right are sold we'll have to renegotiate. Polygnotus (talk) 13:11, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Based on input above (that the reverted language might encourage skipping “before”), you might want to rephrase

Are you starting an RFC? This is good advice, and you'll be more successful if you follow it

to

Are you starting an RFC? This is important guidance and you should follow it

Dw31415 (talk) 14:28, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed RFC (not an RFC yet, wanna get confirmation this is shape of what we wanna ask)

Beginnings of RfC discussion to add back text. Moot now that the text was restored by the reverting editor.

Is RFCBEFORE required to start an RFC?
Should RFCs be closed early if RFCBEFORE has not been met?
Should this language be added?

A) Dw's change

Are you starting an RFC? This is important guidance and you should follow it
Are you trying to shut down someone else's RFC? "RFCBEFORE" good advice, but it's not required.

B) WAID's original

Are you starting an RFC? This is good advice, and you'll be more successful if you follow it.
Are you trying to shut down someone else's RFC? "RFCBEFORE" good advice, but it's not required.

C) none

User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 14:54, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DW seemed to suggest we need an RFC here? I can't quite tell though if polygnotus and WAID came to some consensus before all this, [5] might either be that, or a possible joke? User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 14:56, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bluethricecreamman Well, according to WAID they already have the consensus and don't need an RfC, so let's not do that. It is best to let this just die down for a couple of days and then WAID will continue their work on the PaGs and information pages and I'll be distracted by something else. Even if we disagree on some minor details they do great work on average, so it will work out in the end. Polygnotus (talk) 15:09, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Polygnotus, thanks for reverting your revert. I think this discussion can be closed. If any of the other editors who had concerns with the text, I suggest starting a new section about modifying it. Dw31415 (talk) 17:18, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t feel strongly enough about the text to propose an RfC. I do feel that an RfC would be preferred to continuing the back-and-forth. Both WAID and Poly have valid points. Dw31415 (talk) 15:10, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I am too lazy to continue debating and I think everything that could be useful has been said so I moved to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Council#Status_definitions. Polygnotus (talk) 15:11, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I also do not feel too strongly, which is why i held off on proposing this until now.

if there is no need, then there is no need User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 16:03, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bluethricecreamman Thanks! Polygnotus (talk) 16:19, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Improving RfC quality

I’d like to build on the above discussion by simply asking: Are any fresh ideas for ways to improve the quality of RfC’s? Dw31415 (talk) 16:54, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not new in the sense that no one else has ever had that idea before, but perhaps new in the sense that it hasn't been widely implemented yet. One example is that it would be cool to have RfCs that just have a topic, and not a question nor answers. Polygnotus (talk) 17:52, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind giving an example? FactOrOpinion (talk) 18:14, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@FactOrOpinion I am gonna give an example of what to me is a bad RfC. But please don't interpret that as criticism of the person starting it, or as an accusation of bad faith because it is explicitly not that.

Note also that I don't necessarily agree or disagree with this question or person; some things are just complicated and require a nuanced opinion.

I want you specifically to look at the RfC format, and why it might give one side an advantage or disadvantage.

Look at this RfC.

To me, the hypothetical RfC outcome would have been a thousand times stronger without this framing.

Often asking a question leads to restricting the discussion. But what if we had an RfC that just said "this RfC is to discuss how the opinion of scholars should be incorporated in the article" then you could have a normal free-form discussion below that (and the {{rfc}} template would only be used to attract attention). Because some people believe that RfCs should not get closed stuff like this just continues on wasting every participants time, but to me it would be fine if an experienced user would say: "this is never gonna lead to a workable consensus, lets stop it". Polygnotus (talk) 19:48, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I wasn't clear enough. I was actually asking for an example of an RfC "that just [has] a topic, and not a question nor answers." That is, could you give actual wording for an example of this? I wouldn't call the RfC you linked to an example of this, and I assume you wouldn't either. FactOrOpinion (talk) 20:31, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@FactOrOpinion Ah, I am not sure if one exists. But my example was that instead of the RfC text I linked to it could just have said: "this RfC is to discuss how the opinion of scholars should be incorporated in the article" with a free-form discussion below that. Polygnotus (talk) 20:33, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would expect that to get ignored by most editors (too much work, no idea what the editors really need to hear about) and shouted down as a bad RFC by the rest. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:52, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@WhatamIdoing Maybe. But its worth trying. And I hope you'll agree it is better than the current RfC opening statement. Some people prefer painting on a blank canvas over painting in between the lines. It takes only one brave soul, and then Cunningham's Law takes over. Polygnotus (talk) 20:54, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Let me rephrase: It has been done before in the past (though by editors who didn't know what else to do, not by "one brave soul" intentionally setting out to change the process), and the typical result was that the RFC did not get any useful/on-topic responses.

Sometimes we refer such editors to the Wikipedia:Peer review process. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:11, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You don't understand what I am trying to say. I may be explaining myself badly.

I made a quick example for you here: User:Polygnotus/RFC. At the top of the page a comically bad RfC, at the bottom a far more fair RfC.

The one brave soul is the person who posts a wrong opinion on the internet. Polygnotus (talk) 21:19, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you are trying to say. I'm telling you that when such things have been tagged as RFCs in the past, they don't usually get useful responses from outside editors. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:24, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But that doesn't make sense, how would the bad RfC at the top get more responses than the relatively good RfC at the bottom?

It is the same editor expressing the same extreme opinion. The only difference is that in the 'good' version the editor does not control the framing and options. Polygnotus (talk) 21:26, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In User:Polygnotus/RFC#RfC: Do you admit the scientifically proven fact that the 'over' toilet paper orientation is infinitely superior?, the ===Votes=== section makes clear what kind of a response is wanted: a vote for or against a belief.

User:Polygnotus/RFC#RfC: Toilet paper orientation is just someone's rant. There's no indication what kind of response would be useful. Am I supposed to agree/disagree? Just read it and move on? Where's the "request" in this alleged "request for comment"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:09, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is the section header. It is a request for your opinion about the specified topic. Of course you are free to debate another participant of the RfC, but just giving your opinion is fine too (ideally based on PaGaEs and RS). Polygnotus (talk) 22:14, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Editors won't interpret ==RFC: Toilet paper orientation== as a request. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:18, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We can change it to: "RfC: please give your opinion about how Toilet paper orientation should be described in the article" or whatever.

My point is that it doesn't give the person who starts the RfC control over what to discuss. Polygnotus (talk) 22:20, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The way the RfC bot functions, that first response is going to appear as part of the RfC on WP:RFC/ALL. Did you mean to place the section header, sign the section header, and then add your response? FactOrOpinion (talk) 22:22, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We can just have a new bot that takes over that task.

There are various rules that are intended to ensure we can't be taken hostage by people who have written a bit of software. Stuff like https://wikitech.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:Toolforge/Right_to_fork_policy and https://wikitech.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:Toolforge/Abandoned_tool_policy and probably some more. Polygnotus (talk) 07:28, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I think that would be too broad, as it requires one to read the entire article, though perhaps that's not your intention and is a misreading on my part. I'd revise that RfC to ask only one question: "Is there a consensus among genocide scholars that a genocide is occurring? Y/N. Please add sources to the list below that support your view, preferably with brief illustrative quotes" and then create two headings―RSs that support the existence of a consensus among genocide scholars, and RSs that counter the existence of a consensus among genocide scholars―where the idea is to come up with cumulative/growing lists that help people think about the question. Or, as a regular talk page discussion, I might just add a topic/question "What are good sources for assessing whether there is/isn't a consensus among genocide scholars that a genocide is occurring?", as an attempt to gather the community's knowledge about sources relevant to the question, perhaps with the thought that it might later lead to an RfC about adding a phrase to the first paragraph of the lead, depending on what sources people present. FactOrOpinion (talk) 21:00, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well the person who starts the RfC would still be able to post their opinion of course. Its just that they no longer control the framing of the discussion. Polygnotus (talk) 21:04, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The first replies also frame the discussion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:11, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@WhatamIdoing Yes, but not they are not elevated to a position where they get to decide what the question is and what the appropriate answers are. Polygnotus (talk) 21:14, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think that pre-determining "what the appropriate answers are" is sometimes, but not always, a problem. Sometimes it's helpful, to prevent confusion about what a support or oppose vote means (Do you support the opposite of the cancellation of the nullification of the removal of the insertion of the disputed material?). But mostly, listing support/oppose options encourages voting instead of discussion.

However, in some cases, listing options or general categories is helpful in reminding editors how many categories there actually are – either more extreme than they expected (Should this article have a little or a lot about X? – "None at all" should be added) or if it's a double-barreled question ("Keep because it's well sourced" and "Remove because it's badly sourced" should also have "Remove even though it's well-sourced"). WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:23, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One thing I'd appreciate: if an RfC question gets modified via deletion/addition of text, I'd like the changes to be clear (strikethrough/underscore) and dated. FactOrOpinion (talk) 21:35, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd find that irritating. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:10, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@FactOrOpinion: A datestamp dropped into an RfC statement would interfere with Legobot. The bot searches from the {{rfc}} tag up to (but no further than) the first valid timestamp in order to determine the RfC statement that is to be copied to the RfC listings. It also uses that timestamp in order to calculate when the thirty days expires. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:52, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately it is currently not even required to specify how you will achieve your stated goals when starting an RfC. Often that is obvious, but sometimes you see an RfC where you can't even predict what edits they will make based on the outcome. Polygnotus (talk) 21:50, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think one of the interesting observations you shared earlier is that often the influx of fresh eyes leads to hybrid ideas that haven’t been considered by local editors who are at an impasse. It would be nice if that could flow more naturally (and more quickly) to a consensus. Dw31415 (talk) 19:35, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. And if that requires editing the RfC, adding options or stopping the RfC then that is fine with me. Flexibility is a strength. Polygnotus (talk) 19:58, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the "Bad questions" examples in WP:RFCNEUTRAL are great examples, or at the very least, it shouldn't be assumed that inexperienced editors will understand why these are examples of bad RfC questions. The "Good questions" aren't the best examples either; both are yes/no questions with the same formatting. Perhaps it would be good to have a subpage with more varied examples of Good questions and Bad questions. The Good questions could be more varied in kind and formatting, and perhaps include one where there's a short question that appears on RFC/All with further elaboration underneath (i.e., "If you have more information to say concerning the issue, first, provide (and sign) the initial brief and neutral statement on the page, and then publish the page. After that, you can edit the page again and place additional comments below the initial statement and timestamp"). The Bad questions could include a discussion of why they're bad.

Are the reasons that an RfC is bad limited to: it isn't brief and/or it isn't neutral? Or are there sometimes other reasons? For example, some editors expect RfCs to always be actionable; is there consensus that they should be? If so, that should be added to the description of RfCs, and if not, it might help to be explicit about that. (Personally, I don't think that they must always be actionable; sometimes we need to gather views from a more diverse set of editors, as the RFCBEFORE didn't accomplish that, and perhaps as a precursor to an actionable proposal. But we still might want to encourage people to consider whether they want an actionable result, and if so, to word their question appropriately.) Sometimes I think that an RfC is bad simply because isn't clear enough (i.e., what is this RfC actually asking?). Should we be more forceful in encouraging people to workshop the RfC text before starting an RfC? Would it help to keep a running list for a while of RfCs that we think are bad, along with the reasons we think they're bad, just to explore whether there are any other reasons that people assess an RfC as bad, and to give us ideas about examples of Bad questions to include on the subpage? FactOrOpinion (talk) 18:12, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

+1 for encouraging a brief workshopping period. Maybe there could ultimately be a distinct phase to an RfC:

Tag the RfC
Bot labels the RfC to be in a workshop phase
Tag is updated that the RfC is ready for broadcast

Dw31415 (talk) 19:24, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

some editors expect RfCs to always be actionable. I expect them to usually be actionable, but more importantly to be clear about what action the nomination expects will follow. A good example of action-ambiguity is in the RfC that @FOARP called out. Maybe we’ve over-emphasized neutrality to the point where nom’s feel they need to mask the change they’d like to see. Dw31415 (talk) 19:52, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I like the idea of a distinct phase for working out the RfC statement (and whether there is anything worth requesting comments on at all) before it goes out for comment. I suspect it would save a lot of editor time. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 20:33, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm doubtful that it would save any time net. It slows down the process and adds time for workshop phase; this additional time for all RFCs is probably not offset by the amount of time saved by reducing the small number of confusing RFCs.

It would also give opponents an advantage. One of the roles of RFCs is to bring in those "fresh eyes", and if the opponents are edit-warring over whether it's "ready for broadcast", we won't get those fresh eyes.

Another role of RFCs is to let people ask their "bad" questions, so they can get an answer that's likely to stick. If you have an editor who is convinced that Gaza genocide needs to be re-named, or that the first sentence of Woman needs to be re-written, then an RFC, with a question written to be as favorable to their POV as possible, is a pretty effective way for them to move from "Obviously, editors didn't understand my proposal properly" to "Obviously this community is wrong, but I'm not going to be able to fix this problem". WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:02, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Dw31415: It seems that you would like to change the way that Legobot operates. This is a non-starter, unless somebody is willing to take over Legobot's remaining tasks. Basically, Legoktm is no longer interested in maintaining Legobot, and would like to drop it as soon as a replacement is ready. The bot is kept running, but requests for enhancements and modifications will either be declined or ignored. In short: we need to live with Legobot as it presently operates. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:00, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Redrose64 Unless we can write software. Which we can. It has only 5 active tasks and the code for 4 of those is public. Polygnotus (talk) 23:02, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Off you go then. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:11, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I already explained that here. Polygnotus (talk) 07:29, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point. Dw31415 (talk) 23:35, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to a lack of clarity, an RFC can be brief, neutral, and tendentious. Sometimes the act of starting an RFC is the problem, rather than its subject or its wording. However, that's a behavioral problem that this page does not (and IMO should not) attempt to address.

RFCs are almost always immediately actionable, but sometimes we need a sense-of-the-community RFC so that we can develop actionable ideas for further consideration, or they are actionable but will require a little additional work first, or the point is to stop an action (e.g., a moratorium on changing the first sentence). An "in principle"-type RFC is pretty rare (once or twice a year?), and they usually intend to be at least "pre-actionable" (e.g., if people like this general concept about dealing with LLMs, then we'll come back with a workable process for it). There have also been a couple of RFCs over the years that feel like advertisements ("please sign my petition").

Have you read the advice in Wikipedia:Writing requests for comment? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:50, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While not formalized, we used to have two distinct types of RFCs…

1) idea generation: how should we do X?

2) dispute resolution: should we do X (or Y).

Today, I rarely see the fist. Perhaps we need to bring it back. Blueboar (talk) 21:08, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If there's a subpage with more examples of good/bad RfC questions, I think it would be OK to give an example of a tendentious RfC among examples of Bad questions, though it may be that the same question is tendentious in one context but not another. And perhaps it would be good to say that if an RfC isn't immediately actionable, the proposer should explain immediately under the RfC what they anticipate as a subsequent action, depending on the RfC results. Yes, I did read that advice at one point but had forgotten about that page. FactOrOpinion (talk) 21:24, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think that what makes an RFC by tendentious is very frequently about the context.

About if an RfC isn't immediately actionable, the proposer should explain: Yes, this is usually a good practice. And most people do this, either out of good common sense or because other editors inquire if they don't. But two of the long-term challenges with this page are instruction creep and opponents seeking a bureaucratic excuse to shut down someone else's RFC. So if we say "the proposer should explain", that may be good advice, but it's probably unnecessary (people are already doing it) and therefore WP:CREEPY. And if we say "the proposer should explain", some opponent will use that as an excuse to revert the RFC, saying "You didn't say 'Mother, May I!' – I mean, you didn't follow the rule that says 'the proposer should explain', and it's not obvious to me how this RFC would be immediately actionable." WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:16, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]