Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment: Difference between revisions

; Archives
	For why RfC was created, see Archive at WP:Resolving disputes; Archive 1; ; Archive 2: Feb 2004–May 2005; Archive 3: May 2005–Sep 2005; Archive 4: Sep 2005–Oct 2005; Archive 5: Oct 2005–May 2006; Archive 6: May 2006–not yet full;

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 13:16, 1 January 2007

NOTE: This is not the place to post notices of disputes or requests for comment. Please follow Wikipedia:Requests for comment.

Proposal re user RFCs

Please see Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Closure of RfCs. Guy 10:11, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Desperate help needed at the Black people article! Please get involved!!

This article is an absolute mess. It provides no coherent well sourced definition of a Black person and just rambles on and on about various people who were labled Black in different times, places, and languages, and tries to merge them all together as a coherent ethnic group. It would be like trying to merge Native Americans and people from India into a coherent article called Indian people. It makes no sense. We had requested mediation and the mediator said we should use the census as our source. Here's what the U.S. census says:

A Black is “ a person having origins in any of the Black racial groups of Africa. It includes people who indicate their race as "Black, African Am., or Negro,"or provide written entries such as African American, Afro American, Kenyan, Nigerian, or Haitian.”

Black Africa is a synonym of sub-Saharan Africa and all of the non-African groups mentioned (i.e. African-Americans, Haitains) are descendents of the recent African diasporas. And yet we still have editors insisting that South Asians be given equal weight in the article and be considered Black. These people provide no cited definitions or census classifications to defend their assertions, instead they cherry pick from different sources in different countries for examples of South Asians being labeled Black, often in different languages. But by the same logic, I could argue that the Black Irish are Black. The point is the people editing that article need to be forced to adheare to a coherent sourced authoritative definition of a Black person, or the entire article should just be deleted as POV and unencyclopedic.

Dictionary.com[[1]], the free dictionary online[[2]]., the U.S. census[[3]], and the British census[[4]] all emphasize the idea that Blacks are of African origin-in fact it is against the law for a dark-skinned person of South Asian or Australian origin to claim to be black in the census. An article by the BBC makes a clear distinction between Blacks and the dark skinned people of South Asian ancestry[[5]]. This article about race in biomedicines says “The entities we call ‘racial groups’ essentially represent individuals united by a common descent — a huge extended family, as evolutionary biologists like to say. Blacks, for example, are a racial group defined by their possessing some degree of recent African ancestry (recent because, after all, everyone of us is out of Africa, the origin of Homo sapiens)."[[6]]. I really need help getting the editors of that article to stick to a coherent definition, instead of just pushing their own POV. Editingoprah 06:16, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfC rules question

User:Ryulong created an RfC against User:Masterhatch and invited me to view it. I have had the same issues with Masterhatch as Ryulong has. The RfC rules seem to say:

The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 03:32, 21 October 2006 (UTC)), the page will be deleted.

I already signed myself in "users certifying the basis of the dispute" at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Masterhatch. But do I need to add evidence of trying and failing to resolve the situation myself? I have had arguments with Masterhatch about this previously, but I think Ryulong already provided enough evidence. JIP | Talk 15:02, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

does anyone read RfC/politics??

There are disputes listed under the RfC/politics page that are over a month old. I posted one less than a week ago so perhaps I'm being impatient, but does anyone actually bother to look at this page or visit articles that have been RfCd? Is there an easier way to get additional voices to comment on a particular article?--csloat 20:33, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Listings usually don't end up getting removed even if an issue is resolved, so the length of the list or the age of the entries does not mean that no one is looking at it or that problems aren't being resolved. Many people do look at these articles and visit the pages. One reason why people would be uninterested in looking at an issue is if the issue is not simply and clearly described with a link to a section that is directly linked from the RfC ([7]). Few will want to respond if they get the feeling they will have to read the whole discussion on the talk page and still might not know what the problem is. —Centrx→talk • 06:34, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RFC in the middle of an AFD?

An editor unhappy with an AFD on an article he created has opened an RFC in the middle of an AFD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Opposition to Iran-Iraq War, arguing that the article was being targeted by "Wikipedians of Iranian ancestry". (IMO the article itself is unsalvageable, but the author's perception is clearly different.) A few of the commentators in the AFD seem to have a number of edits on middle-eastern topics, though I have no idea of their ancestry; I have no ancestry in that part of the world.

I have a concern about what will happen to the AFD process if RFC's are routinely opened in the middle of it. Is there a policy on this? Should RFC's be used to mediate an AFD, or should AFD be considered a separate process which shouldn't be interrupted by another process? I'm posting the same question at AFD talk. Fan-1967 02:56, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's a major problem if someone wants to summon comments in a neutral way like RfC (rather than, e.g., spamming like-minded users on their talk pages), unless it were to become widespread where RfC is not used for its purpose. An RfC will not supersede the AfD. —Centrx→talk • 06:40, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All parties

The rules state:

After all parties agree the issue has been resolved

but who are the all parties concerned? If someone -- one of the editors originally involved in the dispute -- does not participate in the RFC, can this editor claim that he did not agree and ignore the RFC consensus? Goldfritha 15:31, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is more a housekeeping matter, that items should not be stricken from the list of RfCs if people do not agree that the issue is resolved; they are removed after a few weeks regardless. If someone is ignoring consensus on an article, that may require administrator intervention or escalation of the dispute. —Centrx→talk • 23:39, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What article is it? —Centrx→talk • 23:42, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if it will be a problem, but I put a Request for Comment on Wizard (fantasy) on Monday, and User:Jc37, the other editor, has made no comments in it, although making other edits on the article. Because this editor has ignored things said in the discussion page until I made edits based on them, and then reverted the edits and only then responded in discussion -- I thought I would like to know what is the Right Thing to Do before I need to know. Goldfritha 00:38, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To be more precise, I wanted to know whether -- granting that a consensus is reached -- I could edit accordingly. Goldfritha 02:10, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly, he didn't notice it because it was placed at the top of the page; I have moved it to the bottom. If you reach a consensus, you should make the appropriate edits; it should at least get the person to notice and respond. —Centrx→talk • 02:19, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. We can hope it will work. Goldfritha 04:07, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reworking some of the categories

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Language and linguistics is perpetually empty or nearly empty, and articles about Carnatic music or Ernest Hemingway do not belong alongside articles about CNN and Eminem, so I think Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Media, art and literature should be split into something like "Popular culture" and "Literature, art, and language", or instead the 'serious' subjects can simply be merged into History? —Centrx→talk • 22:36, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that they should be separated. Though I think just creating an Electronic media: Television, Film, and Computer and video games page should be enough. I also think we should leave Language and Linguistics separate, even if it's a typically small section. - jc37 17:11, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's a typically empty section; few people will go to it and RfCs there will not receive a response. The categories should be divided so that people interested or knowledgeable in a certain area of topics find them together. —Centrx→talk • 17:15, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is, people posting RfCs brings a lot of traffic to the page which then responds to the RfC. If no one posts, no one is there to respond to the stray RfC either. —Centrx→talk • 21:32, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in looking them over:

I still think that Electronic media: Television, Film, and Computer and video games should be created as its own sub-section.
split history and geography into:

Physical geography and political boundaries (such as countries) - Open to suggestions for a better name. Essentially it's what would be found in an atlas, plus geographical/geological themes.
History.

Merge history with art and literature, and language and linguistics (three now smaller but related groupings).

Thoughts and suggestions welcome. : ) - jc37 20:06, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For electronic media, why not just calling "popular culture" or "Media and popular culture", that's a simpler title and is basically equivalent to what's meant by electronic media, without making it sound like the technical specifications of the Internet Protocol should be in this category.
For geography, are there really enough articles for this category?
Merging history with art and literature, etc. makes sense. After all, it's all history if it's not contemporary culture. —Centrx→talk • 03:08, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Devilmaycares RfC

I've moved the Devilmaycares RfC into the candidate pages, because it would appear that only 1 user has certified the dispute. As it happens, the RfC is also over the 48 hours. Addhoc 00:08, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Requests for comment/User conduct#Use of administrator privileges

I have been directed to the subpage Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct#Use of administrator privileges by several administrators who question that I am following the correct procedure to appeal a 6-hours block in ANI (as per WP:BLOCK). I am very confused because the main page of RfC does not make any mention that a RfC could/should be made on administrators' behaviour and because other policy pages clearly suggest otherwise.

If the correct way to conduct an appeal is via RfC, what I doubt, why this is not explicit anywhere in the main relevant policy pages, significatively in this one?

If it is not, why some administrators try to defer the right procedure towards RfC? --Sugaar 17:46, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're obviously unblocked -- there's no further action anyone can take. If you are in a dispute with an administrator over whether or not they should have blocked in the first place, then RfC is the right place. Jkelly 17:55, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How does an editor go about closing a RfC?

As per:

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 21:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 11:37, 14 November 2024 (UTC).

How does a wikieditor go about closing a RfC, or request that a RfC be closed?

Are there any cases which have recently been closed, which I can see or talk to the wikieditors involved? Travb (talk) 16:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If it's a user conduct RFC, there's a section on the User conduct page that details how to go about closing the RFC. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)} 20:08, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How do you respond to an RFC?

This article seems to be unclear as to whether you are to respond to requests for comment on an article's talk page, or somewhere else? 02:00, 24 November 2006 (UTC) Hejsan alla<0)

Amended, [8]. —Centrx→talk • 23:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article Content RFC topic area organization

When listing an article content RFC, you're supposed to put it in an appropriate topic area. Now most articles do fit in one of those topic areas, but what does one do with an article that doesn't quite fit in any of them? In other words, why not have a miscellaneous section? ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)} 20:10, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is the topic? —Centrx→talk • 23:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment on requests for comment

Please pardon me if I'm treading familiar ground here, but it seems to me that many/most RfCs attract few participants, and generally just waste time. And yet, people are always saying, "When having a content dispute, try RfC first." I don't feel like the system is working very well, though, mainly due to lack of participation. Do people know of examples where an RfC really helped? Other thoughts? Thanks. IronDuke 23:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it varies. I've followed 2 user conduct RFCs, and one had lots of participation, and the other didn't have any. As for article RFCs, I think it depends, at least in part, on the subject area and the complexity of the dispute. Simple disputes get more participation, complicated ones get less. Popular subjects get more, ones with little interest get less. Also, if people follow the instructions and put the RFC in a new section and provide a simple, rational summary of the the dispute so people don't have to wade through 5 pages of repetative, emotional, attack-filled argument to even figure out what the dispute is about, there tends to be more participation. I filed a simple little article RFC towards the end of the day yesterday and so far I've gotten 2 responses on it. IMO, the 2 responses have been quite helpful. Hopefully we'll get more responses and the article will end up improving more as a result then it would if we'd settled it between ourselves. On the other hand, I've seen other article RFCs sit for a month with no response at all until, finally, in the end, the parties resolved it between themselves. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)} 15:20, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at several recent ones in the History and Biography sections and all had received some comment, and will probably receive more given that they have only been open for two days. There were a few which I did not bother to closely check because the link sent me to the top of a long undifferentiated talk page—which is exactly the reason why someone would not want to comment. An RfC that asks responders to search through a page to try to even find the dispute section, or which asks responders to read pages upon pages of stale comments when a brief summary with the different viewpoints would be a sufficient starting point, would be less likely to receive a response. Is there a specific subject area that you think is not being covered properly or a specific aspect that you think is flawed? —Centrx→talk • 23:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On this subject could someone please come and comment on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/BooyakaDell, the user involved are chilled down a bit at the moment - but that could quickly deteriorate and we would be back to some very uncivil behaviour and edit warring. Thanks in advance Lethaniol 00:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question regarding process

Is it proper to post an outside view before a RfC has been certified? -Amarkov ^blah_edits 15:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if it is or not, but if I had something to say I'd go ahead and say it. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)} 15:58, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

where to put an an rfc about an article about a company?

The sections listed don't seem to include an appropriate one. 67.117.130.181 17:16, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Economy and trade maybe? This is why I think there should be a miscellaneous section. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)} 17:49, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Comment for several editors in relation particular articles

Can I submit a request for comment on several editors who share the same POV on particular articles for violation of certain policies? I have prepeared my draft here [9]. Can I open a case here that covers it all together? Thanks --Aminz 01:15, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added the RfC but it was removed. [10].

It seems that there was no objection on having an RfC that includes several editors on one topic before the RfC was filed.

Reasons provided: Not a valid RFC. Explicit rules: one dispute, single user, all signers must have tried to resolve.

1. It is one dispute. Violation of WP:RS and WP:NPOV; mainly timewasting attempts to trash sound academic research. And this way of behavior can not be addressed through article RfC.

2. Since these editors support each other on all discussions, the issue was addressed in one RfC. Separate RfC's can be posted but they will have much in common. I believe it is the best to present everything in one RfC.

3. All signers have tried to deal with this issue on the talk pages. There is a huge discussion on the Antisemitism talk pages which deals with reliability of Encyclopedia of Islam, that of Johnson. etc, etc. The dispute is in no way a recent one.

--Aminz 20:47, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If I'd seen this earlier, I'd have answered the first question "no", and that would have ended it there. The instructions for a user RFC are very specific: the second sentence says, This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 06:07, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for eventually replying to the comment. Since the best to present this particular dispute is in one RfC , would you please let me know where can I discuss that. Village Pump? --Aminz 06:23, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An article RFC is the right thing for content disputes such as this. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:32, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What do you do if there has already been an RfC for a user?

Hi, I would like to start an RfC for Cplot vs MONGO. But I noticed there is already a closed RfC on MONGO. Does anyone know what we do in this case. Can we Archive the old one and put a link like what many user do on their talk page and then continue with the new one? If so, can you explain how we do this, I've never really ever archived my user's talk page. --CyclePat 06:08, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just follow the directions on the Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct page and title it MONGO 3, since there already was a 1 and number 2 was deleted.--MONGO 13:24, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/InShaneee

Has seen nothing but the occasional signatory for the last two months. Can this be archived now? --InShaneee 04:10, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say go for it unless somebody has a problem with that. Just H 01:07, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...Sure it's kosher to archive my own RfC? If so, I'll go ahead. --InShaneee 03:21, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not involved in this and have not previously checked out the RfC for InShaneee - but I think that it is extremely bad form for the user under RfC to archive it, especially when the RfC looks like the user in question InShaneee has abused their powers (do not hold me to this - only had a quick look now). ~~Surely if this is the case this RfC is going to go further - potentially to Jimbo or ArbCom.~~ Lethaniol 02:09, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Doh...I thought no one was going to respond to that, so I went ahead and did it. You can restore it if you think that's appropriate, but it IS essentially dead, and has been for over a month. --InShaneee 05:23, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No its fine, have checked with a user who gave a review and think it is okay. Of course there really should be people who read these pages that will close the discussion for you - especially in the case of an admin RfC. That way any perceived WP:COI will be removed. Cheers Lethaniol 13:58, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My thoughts exactly. That's kind of what I was hoping would happen when someone else inspected the situation. --InShaneee 23:46, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cindery's RFC

Would someone kindly format the RFC and move it to a subpage for her? I'd do it myself, but Cindery might have a problem with it if I did it. ---J.S ^(T/C) 07:44, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I'm sorry, it's under User Conduct. ---J.S ^(T/C) 07:45, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Juppiter

What should someone do if they have been PERSONALLY ATTACKED!? User:Juppiter called me an "asshole" in the Christopher Goutman history page thinking that I wasn't going to find out about it, done in a very sneaky way. ATTACK: Revision as of 20:34, November 19, 2006 (edit) (undo) Juppiter (Talk | contribs) m (My god, this asshole user:Yrgh would have you believe that every soap opera is changing executive producer and hw in "early 2007") Newer edit →

Juppiter Yrgh 13:04, 1 January 2007 (UTC)YRGH[reply]