Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Shortcut:
WT:RFC
NOTE: This talk page is not the place to post notices of disputes or requests for comment. Please follow Wikipedia:Requests for comment.
Archive
Archives

Contents

[edit] Archives of WP:RFC

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

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

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

[edit] Srbosjek article

Srbosjek see talkpage

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

[edit] China works for Germany since 1644

Chinese Paramilitary Police Exchange.

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

But Germany set up funds for Free-Tibet.

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

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

[edit] How?

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

[edit] Limits of Template Procedure

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

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

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

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

[edit] Manual RFC list addition option when bot goes AWOL?

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

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

[edit] Merging in editor review

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

[edit] "RFC error" template inserted; not clear why

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

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

[edit] Extremely shabby instructions

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

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

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

[edit] Bumble Bee ,descriptions of nest,etc.

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

[edit] User:RFC bot is down?

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

[edit] Please someone fix this

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

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

[edit] possible RFC template problem

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

[edit] Not showing up on list

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

This is till not working. Can somebody fix it?[1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Life.temp (talk • contribs) 02:44, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I did a few minor things to try and fix. Bot should pick it up on the next run. If it revisits and throws an error again, come update here. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:54, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

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

[edit] RFC bot messed up Chiropractic entry in RFCsci list

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

It is my opinion that [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title

where it should have had:

It is my opinion that [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chiropractic&diff=212343412&oldid=211934121 this change] was for the better. Please give your opinion on the matter.

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

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

[edit] Link Error, Active RfCs by topic area

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

[edit] WTH

The RFCBot keeps rejecting this:

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

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

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

[edit] Problems

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

[edit] Appeal - please help

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

DO NOT REVERT.

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

[edit] Template problem at Talk:Alan_Hovhaness#Discrimination_against_Armenians_in_Somerville

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

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

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

[edit] Closing request

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

Probably wrong place for this request if I understand the box at top of this page :-) Instead see Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Ending RfCs - seems a RfC gets automatically closed one month after last activity by the RfC bot (whatever that is). David Ruben Talk 22:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
However User:RFC bot gives no further details, so could someone familar with the bot help clarify the vague explanation as to RfC closure/archiving :-) David Ruben Talk 22:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RfC/U and evidence - policy suggestions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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