1780:: "Either you sell arms or you don't. If you sell them, they will inevitably end up with people who have the cash to buy them". The US sells arms; therefore, some of them will inevitably end up with people who have the cash to buy them. Or who scavenge them off battlefields. Or who steal them out of warehouses. Or any of many other ways that these problems can happen. But that doesn't necessarily mean that a Knowledge (XXG) article should imply that the US government intentionally, directly, or knowingly provided the weapons to this particular group – unless reliable sources say so, in which case the Knowledge (XXG) article should, too. It will ultimately all hinge on the sources.
188:
1989:
417:
366:
341:
310:
156:
129:
1446:
to, then it is hard for a third party reader to figure out who is was that was being questioned and who the one not replying. Most editors will not scroll up and down, back and forth, between these sections to evaluate a response. My own feeling is that such a "survey" and "discussion" format makes it very easy to cast facile or unsupported votes.
1717:, it looks like the editor started the RFC and then spent the next couple of hours trying to clarify the question. That happens sometimes, and while it's unfortunate, it's not really against the rules. If your first attempt isn't making sense, it's really in everyone's best interest if you try to fix it.
1626:
I am emphatically ambivalent on the question of how to format an RfC. That said, I tend to favor legal minimalism. IMHO an RfC should be formatted in whatever way seems most practicable at the time, and then allowed to develop organically. If a section needs to be added, then add it. If there are too
707:
has multiple proposed additions. I think it would make more sense to have an RFC cover changes only to one section at a time. For example, the "Proposed additions of text 1" covers changes in the section ==Islam==, and the others are about other sections, so just do that one question by itself, and
1645:
It sounds like the bullet points you're talking about are the numbered steps to create an RfC, so advice on the discussion format wouldn't fit as another item there. The misnamed section "Example of an RfC" is where advice on formatting of the discussion is. That section implies it's normal not to
1445:
with edit summary "standard RfC format", whereupon they proceeded to disconnect the vote from the immediate follow up challenges. The format makes a reply/challenge less effective as it is made in a different section by pinging the commenting editor. If they are not able to respond, or choose not
1393:
Users seem to be finding associating with RfC difficult for unexpressed reason. If there is not adequate participation at this point then, is there a point in continuing RfC at this point? would it be better to suspend the RfC for some weeks and restart when some uninvolved users could tell at least
1260:
Agreeing with the points that have been brought up by
Blueboar and WhatamIdoing, there's a lot of info. It makes the whole thing hard to follow and takes away from question(s) you are seeking input on. Based on your list of questions above/feedback you're requesting, am providing some thoughts below
211:
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 grounds to halt or re-start the RfC. If you believe that a question is non-neutral, you are
1798:
I guess we've found another purpose for the RfC talk page beyond discussing the RfC information page: asking for uninvolved editors to help fix an RfC. We previously (by consensus of editors watching this page) extended the purpose to include asking for help in starting an RfC, so it makes sense.
1474:
have such a section. The most popular format has no subdivisions. An RFC is a normal talk-page discussion, and it should therefore not create an artificial separation between votes and interactive discussions. Subdivisions can be useful (e.g., if a very large number of responses is expected), so
254:
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
2016:
This would be very helpful in cases where there's an old (and yet still representative), archived RfC on an article's talk page that is still regularly being invoked to restore a given status quo. A brief notice to that effect, could really reduce the amount of similar edits having to be reverted
1794:
I agree the question was unintelligible, even after the attempts to fix it, mainly because of the fractured
English. I think I figured out what comments the requester meant to request and have reworded it to say that. Ordinarily, it is a bad idea to make a big change to an RfC statement after 5
608:
is almost getting ready. There are around 4 paragraph/ sentences due for RfC discussion. My perception is this RfC discussion would need more deliberation support in which and how much proposed content coverage would be appropriate. So looking for a suitable content deliberation friendly format,
1740:
I would describe the sequence as that, first, the editor started the RFC, then other editors criticized it harshly, and then the editor spent the next couple of hours trying to fix it. The difference is that they restated it as a question after being told that it was a poorly formed RFC. The
1555:
Maybe we should add something to the main page about this? I just checked the open RFCs and found that a majority don't have any sub-sections at all, and only about 20% have separate subsections for ===Survey=== and ===Discussion===. Of those, I'd say that maybe half were warranted (e.g.,
1761:- Yes, that is the RFC in point, but this is both a question about it and a more general question, because other RFCs are also malformed. Now that the RFC asks a question, it still asks the question in a form that is grammatically garbled, and I still don't think that I can answer it.
172:. If the bot is apparently running, then the problem is almost certainly with the template formatting. To get help with formatting the template correctly, please leave a message, including the name of the page where you want to start the RfC, at the bottom of this page.
1242:
My good faith effort was to provide all relevant info at outset through collapse templates, easy navigation and presentation; with your valuable inputs I realize, that actually may have added into complexity. As per inputs henceforth I shall strive to keep it as much
1901:
I think the primary use case for that information is if someone were to say something like "We have to say Israel is engaging in genocide because the BBC did", then it would be appropriate to point out that the BBC has been struggling to get this area right.
293:
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
1672:
is incomprehensible, due to a combination of grammar errors and sloppy construction, and that an uninvolved administrator should end it, because it isn't useful, where should I make that request? It isn't an urgent conduct issue, and so it shouldn't go to
1439:, where you could view what someone's choice was and how they had responded to queries or challenges to that choice. Several editors, including at least two admins, had already responded and replied to queries or challenges. At this point an editor made
1267:
2) Question of Rfc: currently the proposed question is written as "Should the following sentence be added to "Islam" section in the article?" Took a look at this section and it has 4 subsections, so it's unclear where this proposed text is meant to
1176:
clutter that could be removed, and there was no need at all to add ===Survey===, ===Discussion:Proposed additions of text 1===, and ====Proposed additions of text 1 - Discussion==== sub-sections, but the question itself is quite short and simple.
1430:
Does the format of an RfC always have to have a subsection called "Survey" in which people vote and another subsection called "Discussion" in which people discuss or challenge each other's votes/comments? I ask because an RfC that I began on
230:, 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
212:
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.
2012:
template be created to point to one or more closed RfC(s) and their respective outcome(s) for a given article? (naturally excluding "No consensus" ones) This would only be relevant for a handful of pages at any given time.
1092:
Sorry I didn't intend to disrupt you. It's not what others are finding difficult but what an uninvolved user like might be finding difficult? Unless we survey we won't understand our area of improvement that's why request.
2041:
Another way this is done is with a comment near the disputed content that says, "If you're thinking of changing this date, see ... where consensus was found to use this date." That is easier and more visible than an edit
1077:
I don’t really know why I was pinged… I know next to nothing about the subject (and don’t really have an interest in it). Is there a question about how to interpret or apply policy/guidelines that I could assist with?
830:
Time constraints and restraints being DRN moderator and Admin on part of Robert McClenon are very much understandable to me, but for sake of improving participation shall need to understand from other uninvolved users
1146:
should the article text include statements A, B, and C in sections X, Y and Z”. But about half way through I got lost in the wall of text, and stopped reading. I also quickly got confused by all the green drop down
754:- I will take a look. However, the better time to review the format of an RFC is before it is activated, because changes to the RFC while it is active complicate things both during discussion and for the closer.
1775:
It looks to me like the question is whether it's okay to imply that the US is providing weapons to that terrorist group, on the grounds that they have acquired some weapons. It rather reminds me of a line in
1172:
Well, that's what he did. The RFC asks only one short question ("In section "Islam": Should the following sentence be added to "Islam" section in the article?"). There's a whole lot of unnecessary
1879:
I don't think that there is any realistic chance of editors agreeing to do that. The information might be useful in individual cases. I don't know who's still willing to work on the mess that is
2045:
Side note: sometimes that comment is worded, "Do not change this ..." I find that inappropriate and always delete it. If the order is followed by a reason (such as an RfC), I leave the reason.
827:
Thanks for sharing this. Though page views to Talk:Jinn increased after initiating RfC increased that did not translate into expected user participation in the discussion, that intrigues me too.
1123:
No issues. just I had to seek inputs from those who came across only a little and how far they find understanding RfC and how rfC question can be improved. Sorry if I disrupted in good faith
711:
As for getting people to have a conversation, it often helps if they are directly told that the editors are looking for (non-voting) comments, suggestions about how to change the text, etc.
901:
704:
614:
605:
50:
1646:
have survey/discussion format, but if it's important to emphasize that, this is where it would go. It might make sense to refer to this section in step 2 of the instructions.
1795:
days, but I think most editors invited to comment will have skipped this RfC because the RfC statement becomes unintelligible after the fourth word, so it's best to start over.
1605:
1513:
1346:
813:- I have looked at the RFC twice. It confuses and puzzles me. I have a hard time understanding what it is trying to ask or say. I don't have much more to say about it.
1158:
Finally, this is a somewhat niche topic area… I don’t expect you will get a lot of non-involved editors commenting. Ascertaining consensus will be difficult. Good luck.
779:
For some or other reason the RfC got delayed since April, though RfC requesting user LPB has very appreciable patience, I had to give way to their request at some point.
894:
542:
537:
532:
527:
522:
517:
512:
507:
502:
497:
492:
1714:
487:
482:
477:
472:
467:
462:
457:
452:
447:
438:
890:
6) Brief of general content disagreement of involved user provided in collapse template at beginning of discussion section? and it's connect with RfC question?
655:
I helping as discussion facilitator in above case, but I have not set up RfC for
Multiple paragraphs, so please see if you can help out in setting up the RfC.
219:
85:
141:
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
372:
346:
192:
2020:
Yes, a talk page FAQ may serve to do the same, but is less commonly seen or appreciated by newcomers in particular. To be honest, these also sometimes
1198:
were 5. After initiating RfC page views were 80, 60, 80 in three days. Idk what can be ideal participation ratio difference is considerable to ignore.
1741:
difference is that at least two editors responded and criticized before the originator improved it. I have mixed opinions on whether that matters.
1721:
283:
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
91:
776:
seems low attention topic, so, most probably, much discussion is unlikely to take place in couple of days, before you suggest changes, if any.
1565:
1246:
You would have noticed, I always seek community feed back, fully respect and strive to improve with collaborative support of all
Wikipedians.
547:
1862:
1587:
1277:
6) Brief of general content disagreement: also don't think it needs to be included in the rfc itself, probably can be placed elsewhere
881:
3) There is no clear support oppose request in RfC question? or
Question is too neutral to understand significance to involved users?
1594:
245:
142:
35:
31:
80:
1571:
321:
71:
165:
2002:
Feel free to add new ideas; improve, clarify and classify the ideas already here; and discuss the merits of these ideas.
578:
1264:
1) Heading of RfC: instead of saying "proposed additions of text 1", could say, "proposed additions to Islam section"
284:
244:
RFCs aren't votes. You can suggest a compromise or an option that others haven't considered, exactly like you would
1205:
scheduled wiki break is coming let LPB restart the RfC afresh taking above points into account when they come back.
1539:
1495:
1459:
1956:
i believe we should add "Collective)... and statements around the
Israeli-Hamas conflict, especially BBC Arabic."
1766:
1746:
1682:
1579:
818:
759:
677:
557:
2031:
1336:
1285:
234:, you should ask someone else to adjust it (e.g., by asking the person who started the RFC to shorten it or by
327:
1413:
1109:
I think this is s question about how to ask a question about a topic I know nothing about. I'm out of here.
2009:
377:
351:
1961:
1907:
1892:
1869:
1785:
1729:
1715:
Talk:United States and state-sponsored terrorism#RfC for United States and state-sponsored terrorism#Syria
1704:
1617:
1480:
1354:
1182:
1155:. File an RFC asking about one section, resolve that… then file a second RFC about the next section, etc.
716:
1950:
262:
61:
2050:
1804:
1651:
1636:
1884:
1561:
1534:
1507:
1490:
1454:
1137:
Not a disruption… I took a quick look at the proposed RFC, and my initial reaction as an outsider was “
231:
101:
76:
1533:
I knew I was reinventing the wheel, and a very wobbly one at that. Thank you very much for that link.
1345:
I suggest having no sub-sections and no instructions. Just ask the question, sign it, and stop. See
1940:
1762:
1742:
1693:
1678:
814:
769:
755:
726:
673:
637:
1863:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/09/07/bbc-breached-guidelines-more-1500-times-israel-hamas-war
1631:
merge them if such can be done without causing problems. If there is a disagreement, then discuss. -
2027:
1920:
1840:
1524:
1432:
1332:
1295:
1281:
1233:
950:
1880:
1274:
5) Ref-List and author brief provided: providing reflist is helpful, the author brief isn't needed
290:
Can the person who started the RFC, or another involved editor, write a summary of the discussion?
1409:
1390:
1313:
1202:
1163:
1083:
1005:
563:
561:
287:
write down what everyone already knows. Only a minority of RFCs get closing summary statements.
270:
1957:
1903:
1888:
1865:
1781:
1777:
1758:
1725:
1700:
1613:
1476:
1350:
1178:
1114:
976:
730:
712:
57:
1628:
1586:) were formatted with separate ===Yes=== and ===No=== voting sections, which is standard for
2054:
2046:
2035:
1988:
1965:
1945:
1911:
1896:
1873:
1844:
1808:
1800:
1789:
1770:
1750:
1733:
1708:
1686:
1655:
1647:
1640:
1632:
1621:
1583:
1544:
1528:
1500:
1484:
1464:
1417:
1403:
1399:
1358:
1340:
1326:
1322:
1289:
1255:
1251:
1237:
1214:
1210:
1186:
1167:
1132:
1128:
1118:
1102:
1098:
1087:
1072:
1068:
822:
788:
784:
763:
746:
742:
720:
695:
691:
681:
664:
660:
630:
626:
559:
416:
227:
1932:
1829:
1674:
1669:
645:
274:
1557:
705:
User talk:Louis P. Boog/sandbox/Jinn sandbox 4-20-2024#Primary preparation of RfC question
2017:
over and over again for some article that happens to be in the public eye at the time.
17:
1833:
1517:
1226:
961:
1449:
So, cutting long story short: is this format compulsory? Is it
Knowledge (XXG) or RfC
1408:
No objection. Perhaps I should have gotten involved more when the RfC first opened. --
1996:
1159:
1079:
987:
954:
273:
of an RfC is generally considered to be a summary of the current consensus, although
1568:, which has 452 comments so far). That separation was more common for non-articles.
1110:
983:
169:
1580:
Talk:Herrenvolk democracy#RfC Should the
Israeli Flag be displayed in the article?
931:
to understand their inputs about above questions regarding area of improvement in
1395:
1318:
1247:
1206:
1124:
1094:
1064:
810:
780:
751:
738:
737:. Requesting you to have a look and do suggest formatting improvements, if any.
687:
669:
656:
622:
365:
340:
1928:
1575:
1572:
Talk:Asmongold#RfC: Should
Asmongold's full name be included in the article?
1436:
1195:
965:
932:
928:
843:
834:
773:
734:
597:
1696:, if you post a link here, someone will usually notice and take care of it.
222:). If the RFC question itself is substantially longer than all the others
1489:
Thank you very much. This is very helpful, not to mention well-written.
772:
Yes you are right*. As such by
Knowledge (XXG) editor interests standard,
652:
I am willing to provide assistance in submitting an RFC if requested. ..".
261:
Not inherently, but an RFC is usually an effective way of determining the
1924:
972:
1821:
lower BBC to generally unreliable specifically for hamas israel conflict
1604:
have separate sub-sections for "Survey" and "Discussion" comments. See
1038:
above users may have heard a bit about Talk:Jinn discussion previous at
846:? and how we can improve grammar, meaning, understanding of RfC intent?
1475:
they're not banned, but they're neither required nor common, either.
1303:"Should the following sentence be added at the beginning of section "
1347:
Knowledge (XXG):Requests for comment/Example formatting#Most popular
218:
The "question" is the part that shows up on the RFC listing pages (
1144:
I was able to understand that the basic question being asked is: “
839:
so we can improve possibly this RfC and next RfCs in this series.
168:. If the bot hasn't run in the last few hours, then please alert
1943:) and BBC publications with reduced editorial oversight (such as
1043:
1039:
187:
1936:
1304:
1983:
564:
410:
303:
177:
150:
123:
26:
861:
Which of following may have area of difficulty to understand?
241:
I don't like any of the options I've been asked to vote for.
1724:. We try to give editors some time to fix their mistakes.
1722:
Knowledge (XXG):Criteria for speedy deletion#A3. No content
887:
5) Ref-List and author brief provided in collapse template.
884:
4) Sentence/ paragrapha requested to be added is confusing?
1042:
still uninvolved at this moment in on going RfC. - though
733:
After above discussion and discussion with user initiated
1271:
3/4) unable to comment as am not familiar with this topic
280:
Aren't all RFCs supposed to get a formal closing summary?
255:
possibility of ending an RFC early during the first week.
1931:). However, this excludes BBC projects that incorporate
600:. The content dispute is about how much coverage is due.
1606:
Knowledge (XXG):Requests for comment/Example formatting
1514:
Knowledge (XXG):Requests for comment/Example formatting
1441:
1221:
641:
235:
198:
109:
1883:
articles and therefore might be able to help. Maybe @
1923:. It is considered generally reliable. This includes
1828:
This discussion is off-topic for this page; it is a
1595:
Knowledge (XXG):Requests for comment#Creating an RfC
604:
After a long enough discussion among involved users
1927:, BBC documentaries, and the BBC History site (on
1141:”. You are asking too many questions at one time.
907:9) It's some thing else then pl. help understand.
897:which provides glimpse how the change would look?
439:Dispute resolution/Archive 1#Requests for comment
1349:if you need an example of what this looks like.
375:, a project which is currently considered to be
620:suggest which RfC format will be more suitable?
320:does not require a rating on Knowledge (XXG)'s
162:Are you having trouble getting your RfC listed?
38:and anything related to its purposes and tasks.
1953:should conform to the corresponding guideline.
927:Let me ping few users to uninvolved so far in
387:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Dispute Resolution
837:confuses and puzzles users uninvolved so far?
572:This page has archives. Sections older than
215:The RFC question is not brief. Can I fix it?
8:
1331:Happy to help! and yep, I think that works.
844:Talk:Jinn#RfC: Proposed additions of text 1
842:What is clear and what is confusing in of
835:Talk:Jinn#RfC: Proposed additions of text 1
735:Talk:Jinn#RfC: Proposed additions of text 1
1851:The following discussion has been closed.
1824:
1394:what they are finding difficult with RfC?
1021:
856:
644:, where in you said ".. they may submit a
596:I am in role of discussion facilitator at
335:
2026:very smug and undemocratic to outsiders.
1566:Knowledge (XXG) talk:Notability (species)
609:just beyond usual support/oppose format.
226:you are not appearing in the role of the
1720:For an analogous situation, think about
166:make sure the bot hasn't been turned off
1312:Many thanks for valuable inputs. Fyi: @
1194:Average per day page views in 2023 for
686:Would wait and look forward to. Thanks
648:,which should be neutrally worded, and
390:Template:WikiProject Dispute Resolution
337:
1588:Knowledge (XXG):Requests for adminship
1191:I think you and Blueboar have a point.
1046:related RfC question is planned later.
1980:Disclose relevant RfC via editnotice?
1558:Talk:Lucy Letby#RFC on first sentence
1261:on "text 1", hoping it can help some.
7:
371:This article is within the scope of
309:
307:
143:Knowledge (XXG):Requests for comment
615:Primary preparation of RfC question
606:Primary preparation of RfC question
326:It is of interest to the following
236:posting a note on the RFC talk page
1590:but should be very rare otherwise.
904:which will come to RfC one by one?
25:
1453:? Look forward to your answers,
902:List of questions at user sandbox
708:leave the others for another day.
576:may be automatically archived by
246:in any other talk page discussion
56:New to Knowledge (XXG)? Welcome!
1987:
1593:Perhaps another bullet point in
1560:with 188 comments so far, or my
672:- I will look within 48 hours.
415:
364:
339:
308:
258:Is the result of an RFC binding?
186:
154:
127:
51:Click here to start a new topic.
208:The RfC question isn't neutral!
2055:17:02, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
2036:12:45, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
1699:This is not an admin's job.
1026:Why set of above users pinged?
803:arbitrary break for navigation
435:For why RfC was created, see:
373:WikiProject Dispute Resolution
1:
2047:Bryan Henderson (giraffedata)
1966:21:20, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
1912:21:12, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
1897:21:11, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
1874:20:49, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
1845:21:34, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
1809:16:44, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
1801:Bryan Henderson (giraffedata)
1648:Bryan Henderson (giraffedata)
48:Put new text under old text.
1916:this is the current summary:
251:How long should an RFC last?
1921:publicly funded broadcaster
1790:21:12, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
1771:19:13, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
1751:17:15, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
1734:18:42, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
1709:18:31, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
1687:07:08, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
1656:02:17, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
1641:22:27, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
1622:19:53, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
1545:17:52, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
1529:17:17, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
1501:17:03, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
1485:16:53, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
1465:16:09, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
1300:2) Would it be okay to ask
393:Dispute Resolution articles
2071:
1359:17:15, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
1341:13:59, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
1327:08:34, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
1290:22:55, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
1219:WAID: It was worse before
650:preferably in three parts.
591:Pl. suggest format for RfC
203:Frequently asked questions
99:
1597:, to say something like:
1418:15:39, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
1404:12:49, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
1256:13:16, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
1238:22:33, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
1215:16:33, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
1187:15:20, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
1168:13:21, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
1133:12:20, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
1119:12:17, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
1103:12:18, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
1088:11:45, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
1073:10:21, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
823:03:42, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
789:07:27, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
764:18:21, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
747:13:41, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
721:17:57, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
696:08:19, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
682:08:00, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
665:07:46, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
640:, Please refer to one of
631:12:07, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
359:
334:
86:Be welcoming to newcomers
1854:Please do not modify it.
1627:many, then go ahead and
533:April 2021–November 2021
513:August 2015–October 2016
18:Knowledge (XXG) talk:RfC
642:your Apr 2024 DRN close
220:example of listing page
1933:user-generated content
1174:small text instruction
613:Please have a look at
579:Lowercase sigmabot III
538:November 2021–May 2023
518:October 2016–June 2018
271:formal closing summary
81:avoid personal attacks
1951:Statements of opinion
1608:for more information.
1139:Too long, didn’t read
503:January 2012—May 2013
498:Feb 2010-January 2012
1995:This idea is in the
1941:BBC Domesday Project
1664:Incomprehensible RFC
646:Request for Comments
528:June 2020–April 2021
508:May 2013–August 2015
275:consensus can change
36:Requests for comment
2008:Should/could a new
1778:"The Whisky Priest"
1668:If I think that an
1433:Talk:Mahatma Gandhi
878:2) Question of RfC?
523:June 2018–June 2020
232:part of the dispute
1470:It should usually
1391:User:Louis P. Boog
1307:" in the article?"
875:1) Heading of RfC?
483:July 2007–Dec 2007
384:Dispute Resolution
347:Dispute Resolution
322:content assessment
265:of editors, which
137:This talk page is
92:dispute resolution
53:
2006:
2005:
1977:
1976:
1919:BBC is a British
1759:User:WhatamIdoing
1536:Fowler&fowler
1508:Fowler&fowler
1492:Fowler&fowler
1456:Fowler&fowler
1175:
1056:
1055:
1011:
1010:
998:
997:
993:
992:
944:
943:
939:
938:
919:
918:
601:
598:Talk:Jinn#Pre-RfC
586:
585:
493:Feb 2009-Feb 2010
488:Jan 2008-Feb 2009
478:Jan 2007–Jun 2007
473:May 2006–Dec 2006
468:Oct 2005–May 2006
463:Sep 2005–Oct 2005
458:May 2005–Sep 2005
453:Feb 2004–May 2005
409:
408:
405:
404:
401:
400:
302:
301:
201:
176:
175:
149:
148:
122:
121:
72:Assume good faith
49:
16:(Redirected from
2062:
1991:
1984:
1856:
1836:
1825:
1542:
1537:
1520:
1511:
1498:
1493:
1462:
1457:
1426:Format of an RfC
1229:
1224:
1173:
1022:
1009:
1001:
1000:
996:
995:
991:
980:
969:
958:
947:
946:
942:
941:
937:
936:
857:
595:
581:
565:
419:
411:
395:
394:
391:
388:
385:
368:
361:
360:
355:
343:
336:
313:
312:
311:
304:
228:loyal opposition
191:
190:
178:
158:
157:
151:
131:
130:
124:
112:
27:
21:
2070:
2069:
2065:
2064:
2063:
2061:
2060:
2059:
1982:
1852:
1834:
1823:
1763:Robert McClenon
1743:Robert McClenon
1713:In the case of
1694:Robert McClenon
1679:Robert McClenon
1666:
1540:
1535:
1518:
1505:
1496:
1491:
1460:
1455:
1428:
1227:
1220:
1057:
1027:
1003:
981:
970:
959:
948:
920:
862:
815:Robert McClenon
805:
770:Robert McClenon
756:Robert McClenon
727:Robert McClenon
674:Robert McClenon
638:Robert McClenon
593:
577:
566:
560:
424:
392:
389:
386:
383:
382:
349:
298:
297:
204:
202:
170:the bot's owner
155:
128:
118:
117:
116:
115:
108:
104:
97:
67:
34:for discussing
23:
22:
15:
12:
11:
5:
2068:
2066:
2058:
2057:
2043:
2028:Biohistorian15
2004:
2003:
2001:
1992:
1981:
1978:
1975:
1974:
1973:
1972:
1971:
1970:
1969:
1968:
1954:
1917:
1858:
1857:
1848:
1847:
1822:
1819:
1818:
1817:
1816:
1815:
1814:
1813:
1812:
1811:
1796:
1792:
1755:
1754:
1753:
1718:
1697:
1665:
1662:
1661:
1660:
1659:
1658:
1643:
1611:
1610:
1609:
1591:
1569:
1553:
1552:
1551:
1550:
1549:
1548:
1547:
1427:
1424:
1423:
1422:
1421:
1420:
1386:
1385:
1384:
1383:
1382:
1381:
1380:
1379:
1378:
1377:
1376:
1375:
1374:
1373:
1372:
1371:
1370:
1369:
1368:
1367:
1366:
1365:
1364:
1363:
1362:
1361:
1333:Eucalyptusmint
1316:
1310:
1309:
1308:
1298:
1296:Eucalyptusmint
1282:Eucalyptusmint
1278:
1275:
1272:
1269:
1265:
1262:
1244:
1217:
1199:
1192:
1156:
1153:keep it simple
1151:My advice is:
1149:
1142:
1107:
1106:
1105:
1054:
1053:
1052:
1051:
1050:
1049:
1048:
1047:
1029:
1028:
1025:
1020:
1019:
1018:
1017:
1016:
1015:
1014:
1013:
1012:
951:Eucalyptusmint
940:
917:
916:
915:
914:
913:
912:
911:
910:
909:
908:
905:
898:
891:
888:
885:
882:
879:
876:
864:
863:
860:
855:
854:
853:
852:
851:
850:
849:
848:
847:
828:
804:
801:
800:
799:
798:
797:
796:
795:
794:
793:
792:
791:
709:
702:
701:
700:
699:
698:
653:
592:
589:
584:
583:
571:
568:
567:
562:
558:
556:
553:
552:
551:
550:
545:
540:
535:
530:
525:
520:
515:
510:
505:
500:
495:
490:
485:
480:
475:
470:
465:
460:
455:
450:
444:
443:
442:
441:
430:
429:
426:
425:
420:
414:
407:
406:
403:
402:
399:
398:
396:
369:
357:
356:
344:
332:
331:
325:
314:
300:
299:
296:
295:
291:
288:
281:
278:
259:
256:
252:
249:
242:
239:
216:
213:
209:
205:
185:
184:
183:
181:
174:
173:
159:
147:
146:
132:
120:
119:
114:
113:
105:
100:
98:
96:
95:
88:
83:
74:
68:
66:
65:
54:
45:
44:
41:
40:
39:
24:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2067:
2056:
2052:
2048:
2044:
2040:
2039:
2038:
2037:
2033:
2029:
2025:
2024:
2018:
2014:
2011:
2000:
1998:
1997:brainstorming
1993:
1990:
1986:
1985:
1979:
1967:
1963:
1959:
1955:
1952:
1948:
1947:
1942:
1938:
1934:
1930:
1926:
1922:
1918:
1915:
1914:
1913:
1909:
1905:
1900:
1899:
1898:
1894:
1890:
1886:
1882:
1878:
1877:
1876:
1875:
1871:
1867:
1864:
1860:
1859:
1855:
1850:
1849:
1846:
1842:
1838:
1831:
1827:
1826:
1820:
1810:
1806:
1802:
1797:
1793:
1791:
1787:
1783:
1779:
1774:
1773:
1772:
1768:
1764:
1760:
1756:
1752:
1748:
1744:
1739:
1738:
1737:
1736:
1735:
1731:
1727:
1723:
1719:
1716:
1712:
1711:
1710:
1706:
1702:
1698:
1695:
1691:
1690:
1689:
1688:
1684:
1680:
1676:
1671:
1663:
1657:
1653:
1649:
1644:
1642:
1638:
1634:
1630:
1625:
1624:
1623:
1619:
1615:
1612:
1607:
1603:
1599:
1598:
1596:
1592:
1589:
1585:
1581:
1577:
1573:
1570:
1567:
1563:
1559:
1554:
1546:
1543:
1538:
1532:
1531:
1530:
1526:
1522:
1515:
1509:
1504:
1503:
1502:
1499:
1494:
1488:
1487:
1486:
1482:
1478:
1473:
1469:
1468:
1467:
1466:
1463:
1458:
1452:
1447:
1444:
1443:
1438:
1434:
1425:
1419:
1415:
1411:
1410:Louis P. Boog
1407:
1406:
1405:
1401:
1397:
1392:
1388:
1387:
1360:
1356:
1352:
1348:
1344:
1343:
1342:
1338:
1334:
1330:
1329:
1328:
1324:
1320:
1317:
1315:
1314:Louis P. Boog
1311:
1306:
1302:
1301:
1299:
1297:
1293:
1292:
1291:
1287:
1283:
1279:
1276:
1273:
1270:
1266:
1263:
1259:
1258:
1257:
1253:
1249:
1245:
1241:
1240:
1239:
1235:
1231:
1223:
1218:
1216:
1212:
1208:
1204:
1203:Louis P. Boog
1200:
1197:
1193:
1190:
1189:
1188:
1184:
1180:
1171:
1170:
1169:
1165:
1161:
1157:
1154:
1150:
1148:
1143:
1140:
1136:
1135:
1134:
1130:
1126:
1122:
1121:
1120:
1116:
1112:
1108:
1104:
1100:
1096:
1091:
1090:
1089:
1085:
1081:
1076:
1075:
1074:
1070:
1066:
1063:
1062:
1061:
1060:
1059:
1058:
1045:
1041:
1037:
1036:
1035:
1034:
1033:
1032:
1031:
1030:
1024:
1023:
1007:
1006:Louis P. Boog
999:
994:
989:
985:
978:
974:
967:
963:
956:
952:
945:
934:
930:
926:
925:
924:
923:
922:
921:
906:
903:
899:
896:
892:
889:
886:
883:
880:
877:
874:
873:
872:
871:
870:
869:
868:
867:
866:
865:
859:
858:
845:
841:
840:
838:
836:
833:What part of
829:
826:
825:
824:
820:
816:
812:
809:
808:
807:
806:
802:
790:
786:
782:
778:
777:
775:
771:
767:
766:
765:
761:
757:
753:
750:
749:
748:
744:
740:
736:
732:
728:
724:
723:
722:
718:
714:
710:
706:
703:
697:
693:
689:
685:
684:
683:
679:
675:
671:
668:
667:
666:
662:
658:
654:
651:
647:
643:
639:
635:
634:
633:
632:
628:
624:
621:
617:
616:
610:
607:
602:
599:
590:
588:
580:
575:
570:
569:
555:
554:
549:
546:
544:
541:
539:
536:
534:
531:
529:
526:
524:
521:
519:
516:
514:
511:
509:
506:
504:
501:
499:
496:
494:
491:
489:
486:
484:
481:
479:
476:
474:
471:
469:
466:
464:
461:
459:
456:
454:
451:
449:
446:
445:
440:
437:
436:
434:
433:
432:
431:
428:
427:
423:
418:
413:
412:
397:
380:
379:
374:
370:
367:
363:
362:
358:
353:
348:
345:
342:
338:
333:
329:
323:
319:
315:
306:
305:
292:
289:
286:
282:
279:
276:
272:
269:binding. The
268:
264:
260:
257:
253:
250:
247:
243:
240:
237:
233:
229:
225:
221:
217:
214:
210:
207:
206:
200:
197:
194:
189:
182:
180:
179:
171:
167:
163:
160:
153:
152:
144:
140:
136:
133:
126:
125:
111:
107:
106:
103:
93:
89:
87:
84:
82:
78:
75:
73:
70:
69:
63:
59:
58:Learn to edit
55:
52:
47:
46:
43:
42:
37:
33:
29:
28:
19:
2022:
2021:
2019:
2015:
2007:
1994:
1958:NotQualified
1944:
1904:WhatamIdoing
1889:WhatamIdoing
1885:BilledMammal
1866:NotQualified
1861:
1853:
1782:WhatamIdoing
1726:WhatamIdoing
1701:WhatamIdoing
1667:
1614:WhatamIdoing
1601:
1582:(started by
1574:(started by
1477:WhatamIdoing
1471:
1450:
1448:
1440:
1435:looked like
1429:
1351:WhatamIdoing
1179:WhatamIdoing
1152:
1145:
1138:
977:Austronesier
933:on going RfC
895:User sandbox
832:
731:WhatamIdoing
713:WhatamIdoing
649:
619:
612:
611:
603:
594:
587:
573:
421:
376:
328:WikiProjects
318:project page
317:
266:
223:
195:
161:
138:
134:
30:This is the
1757:Thank you,
1633:Ad Orientem
1584:Ad Orientem
1562:WP:PROPOSAL
929:present RfC
811:User:Bookku
752:User:Bookku
670:User:Bookku
2010:editnotice
1946:Collective
1929:BBC Online
1832:matter. --
1602:should not
1600:Most RfCs
543:June 2023–
285:officially
277:over time.
1935:(such as
1881:WP:ARBPIA
1442:this edit
1396:Bookku
1319:Bookku
1248:Bookku
1207:Bookku
1196:Talk:Jinn
1125:Bookku
1095:Bookku
1065:Bookku
962:Toadspike
781:Bookku
774:Talk:Jinn
739:Bookku
688:Bookku
657:Bookku
623:Bookku
263:consensus
94:if needed
77:Be polite
32:talk page
1939:and the
1925:BBC News
1243:simpler.
1222:this fix
1160:Blueboar
1080:Blueboar
988:Blueboar
955:Zero0000
548:(future)
448:Feb 2004
422:Archives
378:inactive
352:inactive
294:summary.
102:Shortcut
62:get help
2042:notice.
1111:Maproom
1044:WP:NRON
1040:WP:NRON
984:Maproom
935:format.
574:40 days
164:Please
2023:appear
1999:stage.
1837:rose64
1830:WP:RSN
1675:WP:ANI
1578:) and
1541:«Talk»
1521:rose64
1497:«Talk»
1461:«Talk»
1451:policy
1230:rose64
1147:boxes.
324:scale.
110:WT:RFC
1629:boldy
1576:Some1
1305:Islam
729:and @
316:This
135:NOTE:
90:Seek
2051:talk
2032:talk
1962:talk
1937:h2g2
1908:talk
1893:talk
1887:?
1870:talk
1841:talk
1839:🌹 (
1805:talk
1786:talk
1767:talk
1747:talk
1730:talk
1705:talk
1683:talk
1652:talk
1637:talk
1618:talk
1525:talk
1523:🌹 (
1516:. --
1512:See
1481:talk
1437:this
1414:talk
1400:talk
1355:talk
1337:talk
1323:talk
1286:talk
1252:talk
1234:talk
1232:🌹 (
1225:. --
1211:talk
1183:talk
1164:talk
1129:talk
1115:talk
1099:talk
1084:talk
1069:talk
1002:Fyi:
986:and
975:and
966:EEng
964:and
953:and
819:talk
785:talk
760:talk
743:talk
717:talk
692:talk
678:talk
661:talk
627:talk
618:and
199:edit
193:view
79:and
1949:).
1835:Red
1677:.
1670:RFC
1564:at
1519:Red
1472:not
1268:go.
1228:Red
973:TFD
900:8)
893:7)
224:and
139:not
2053:)
2034:)
1964:)
1910:)
1895:)
1872:)
1843:)
1807:)
1788:)
1769:)
1749:)
1732:)
1707:)
1685:)
1654:)
1639:)
1620:)
1527:)
1483:)
1416:)
1402:)
1357:)
1339:)
1325:)
1288:)
1280:-
1254:)
1236:)
1213:)
1185:)
1166:)
1131:)
1117:)
1101:)
1086:)
1071:)
821:)
787:)
762:)
745:)
719:)
694:)
680:)
663:)
629:)
267:is
238:).
60:;
2049:(
2030:(
1960:(
1906:(
1891:(
1868:(
1803:(
1784:(
1765:(
1745:(
1728:(
1703:(
1692:@
1681:(
1650:(
1635:(
1616:(
1510::
1506:@
1479:(
1412:(
1398:(
1389:@
1353:(
1335:(
1321:(
1294:@
1284:(
1250:(
1209:(
1201:@
1181:(
1162:(
1127:(
1113:(
1097:(
1082:(
1067:(
1008::
1004:@
990::
982:@
979::
971:@
968::
960:@
957::
949:@
817:(
783:(
768:@
758:(
741:(
725:@
715:(
690:(
676:(
659:(
636:@
625:(
582:.
381:.
354:)
350:(
330::
248:.
196:·
145:.
64:.
20:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
