Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment

An RfC was closed as bad on a page where I’m a contributor. I agree that the RfC needed to be reformatted. I’m wondering if there’s a more welcoming way to handle it. Here’s the close: Talk:2025 Potomac River mid-air collision#c-Rosbif73-20260218095600-RfC: Should it be changed from American Airlines Flight 5342 to American Eagle F Dw31415 (talk) 13:38, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

@Rosbif73, I agree with your assessment of the above RfC. There was a previous discussion about BadRfC’s here. Maybe this example helps find a consensus on how to handle. Dw31415 (talk) 13:42, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

I’ll look for the recent BadRfC discussion but I appreciate it if someone else links to it first. Dw31415 (talk) 13:56, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

• I'm leaning towards reverting that close, which ought to have been a !vote. I'm almost, but not quite, certain enough to revert it summarily without discussion.—S Marshall T/C 14:21, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

  I say leave it closed because I coached the nominator on… wait a minute, the project RfC is still open. I’ll link to it here and on the talk page: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation#c-Zaptain United-20251101023400-RfC: Should the article title be styled as the IATA name, Branded name, or the I Dw31415 (talk) 15:01, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

  Then again, reverting would restore the FRS link. I didn’t revert because that felt like one aggressive response to another. I’d really appreciate some consensus on handling BadRfC’s, specifically, altering the question in the early days. Dw31415 (talk) 15:09, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

  I fixed the FRS link by adding ann anchor tag. Dw31415 (talk) 15:38, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

  My main rationale for the quick close was the rambling, non-neutral statement coupled with the apparent absence of any RFCBEFORE, and thus no apparent reason for holding an RfC rather than just a normal talk page discussion. It has now been pointed out that the issue had been raised previously. I didn't mean this to come across as an aggressive response, and I'd understand if the close is reverted. But I agree that consensus on how to handle "bad" RfCs would be helpful. It seems common that in cases where a poorly worded nom statement is amended after discussion has started, the whole process is often derailed, with meta-discussions about the statement mixed in with actual discussions about the issue at hand, and participants being unsure what they're !voting on. Rosbif73 (talk) 15:25, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

  @Rosbif73, please to go WP:RFCBEFORE and look for the little box in the sidebar. Find the words that say:

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

  Having read that, do you now agree with me that "most importantly no WP:RFCBEFORE" isn't (ever) a valid reason to unilaterally shut down someone else's RFC? And what could we do to make that easier for experienced editors like you to discover this?

  The correct responses to an RFC such as that one are (in no particular order):

  • Add a brief, neutral RFC question to the top. For example, add "This article says 'American Airlines' throughout. Should we change that to 'American Eagle' instead? ~~~~~" (five tildes, so that nobody's name is in it).
  • Provide a sensible response (a "vote"). A clear reply can do a lot to reduce confusion.
  • Ask the OP if they'd like help improving or clarifying their RFC question (or if they'd like to use a different process).
  • Ask for help on this page.

  WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:01, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

  Having read WP:RFC more thoroughly, I entirely agree that my close was out of order, and apologise to @Zaptain United (the nom of the discussion in question) in particular.

  How could things be improved to make this easier to discover? Two quick comments: Firstly, the "are you trying to shut down..." sidebar isn't particularly visible, and the centralised discussion box pushes it down so that it isn't even opposite RFCBEFORE. Secondly, perhaps some advice about how not to close could be added to RFCEND, which seems a more logical place than RFCBEFORE to start looking for advice for someone considering closing an RFC. Rosbif73 (talk) 08:24, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

  Your gracious and reflective approach here is admirable. Respect.—S Marshall T/C 09:26, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

  +1 Dw31415 (talk) 12:43, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

  These are both great ideas. Maybe the box could get a little light blue background? Or an image that might catch someone's eye?

  I love the idea of putting something in RFCEND. I agree with you that this is actually the sensible place for people to look for that information. Do you want to add something yourself to WP:RFCEND? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:57, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

  I've boldly added a {{tick}} and a {{n.b.}} to the side box. But I'm not yet confident that I understand the consensus surrounding early closes well enough to add something to WP:RFCEND. Would it be true to say that an early close of a bad RFC is always frowned upon, or are there cases where it would be recommended? For example, if an RFC proposed something that was a blatant violation of policy (say a suggestion to add information that would be a clear WP:BLPPRIVACY concern), would it be better to close the RFC preemptively, or just remove any concerns from the statement itself and then wait for it to SNOW? Rosbif73 (talk) 10:38, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

  That sidebox is against consensus (and worse yet, a bad idea), so drawing yet more attention to it is not an improvement. It should be removed.

  A minority thinks the RfC should be an unstoppable weapon, and there is no such thing as a bad RfC. This is incorrect. Polygnotus (talk) 10:58, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

  You disagree with the sidebox. However, you are not "consensus". WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:53, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

  Agreed. Neither of us is. That is my point. Polygnotus (talk) 19:00, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

  Here’s the last discussion: Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment#Bad RFC votes Dw31415 (talk) 15:51, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

  On my screen, that link doesn't work. On my screen it's at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Archive 23#Bad RFC votes.—S Marshall T/C 20:02, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

• OK. "Bad RfC" is an increasingly common response to a RfC question that the !voter doesn't want to proceed for various reasons, and we're increasingly seeing it appear in bold face. "Bad RfC -- question isn't neutral" or "Bad RfC -- see previous discussions X, Y, and Z" or "Bad RfC -- wrong place" all come into this category and they need different responses and get different weights.
  What we have for guidance on this is Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/FAQ. I think it covers this situation.—S Marshall T/C 15:50, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

  Good point, Wikipedia:RFCRESPOND does explicitly say not to close a poorly worded RfC Dw31415 (talk) 15:57, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

  @S Marshall, the FAQ link above doesn’t work and I can’t find it. Would you please check the FAQ link? Dw31415 (talk) 16:09, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

  Well that's confusing. It's a valid link and it works fine for me. It's the template that appears near the top of this page.—S Marshall T/C 16:17, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

  Very strange! I get an empty talk page (Chrome on iOS) Dw31415 (talk) 16:20, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

  Oh, the FAQ is there hidden under “Learn more about this page”. Dw31415 (talk) 16:26, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

  All 'top matter' is hidden on the mobile site. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:53, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

  Maybe some of the FAQ needs to find its way into the main page, especially since it's not so visible for editors using the mobile site. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:02, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

• Is there any way to deprecate the words “Bad RFC”? Sure, there are flawed RFCs (Non-neutral questions, overly rambling statements, etc) but it seems bitey to label any attempt to find consensus as “BAD” (naughty, naughty! Shame on you!). Blueboar (talk) 21:07, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

  This is the naming convention used everywhere else. Polygnotus (talk) 22:40, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

  We could make something like Template:Single-purpose account that can be used in opposition, e.g.:

  —See WP:RFCRESPOND and WP:RFCFAQ for advice on responding appropriately to RFCs that you believe are unnecessary, poorly framed, or otherwise improper.

  If there was relevant information at those two locations and the template got used fifty or a hundred times, I think people would get the message over time. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:24, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

  The fundamental problem of BADRFCs cannot be solved by yet another obscure template, the problem can be solved by allowing people to close bad RfCs. Polygnotus (talk) 22:36, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

  Many reasonably contentious RfCs get !votes saying "Bad RfC", and they have different values and validities. For example:

  Vote	Actual objection	Recommended outcome
  Bad RfC	Question isn't neutral	Uninvolved person to evaluate: if true, fix the question
  Bad RfC	Repeat of recent, relevant previous discussions	Uninvolved person to evaluate: if true, summarily close the RfC linking previous consensus
  Bad RfC	Wrong process	Uninvolved person to evaluate: if appropriate, move to RM, MR, DRV, PM, etc.
  Bad RfC	Premature	Uninvolved person to evaluate: if appropriate, convert to regular talk page discussion
  Bad RfC	I want this to fail	Uninvolved person to evaluate and offer support and guidance

  I wish we had more people clerking RfC.—S Marshall T/C 22:42, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

  @S Marshall I wish the tiny group of people who set the rules around here would stop trying to make the RfC the unstoppable weapon of mass destruction.

  Speculating that people who want to close an RfC are doing so in bad faith is a terrible look.

  Assuming that there is a huge number of "uninvolved" editors going around fixing bad RfC questions, closing and moving discussions is just incorrect. Polygnotus (talk) 22:46, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

  And you wrote if appropriate, convert to regular talk page discussion but RfCs are supposed to be regular talk page discussions with no special status. It is completely unworkable for me to go around closing lets say 60% of RfCs for being premature, but I wouldn't be surprised if 60% of RfCs are premature. Polygnotus (talk) 22:47, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

  I join issue with you on all that you say. I feel that summarily closing a RfC should be rare---although I have recently done it. Where the RfC is "bad", as it were, but we're dealing with a good faith user who thinks there's a problem to solve, the discussion should typically be delisted as a RfC with an explanatory note, but allowed to continue.

  I absolutely believe that there are people who use "Bad RfC" !votes as a spoiling tactic to prevent changes they oppose, and I think it's naive to pretend otherwise.

  RfC is Wikipedia's highest content dispute resolution process. It's an attempt to find consensus, and consensus is God Almighty.—S Marshall T/C 22:53, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

  @S Marshall Where the RfC is "bad", as it were, but we're dealing with a good faith user who thinks there's a problem to solve, the discussion should typically be delisted as a RfC with an explanatory note, but allowed to continue. I agree with that. In exceptional cases (e.g. trolls, IDHT) you can remove the template and close the discussion as well, but those are relatively rare compared to cases in which the template should just be removed and the discussion should continue.

  I absolutely believe that there are people who use "Bad RfC" !votes as a spoiling tactic to prevent changes they oppose, and I think it's naive to pretend otherwise. Maybe, but my point is not that they don't exist, my point is that its a bad look to assume bad faith in such cases. People disagree, you know. People have a different background, some people get the wrong end of the stick once in a while, some people consistently do and always say things that I believe are incorrect. But often they do it with the best of faith, which is very frustrating.

  RfC is Wikipedia's highest content dispute resolution process. No it isn't. A discussion is Wikipedia's only content dispute resolution process. The RfC tag is just a way to try to attract more people to a specific discussion.

  But since everyone thinks that the discussion they started is super important and needs immediate attention from a large group of people, we need to have a way to stop people wasting a fuckton of time. Wikipedia:Most ideas are bad and all that. Wasting everyone's time is a form of disruptive editing. Polygnotus (talk) 23:04, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

  We still get plenty of people - not all of them newbies - who launch an RfC as the first step in discussing a somewhat minor matter. It feels as if they believe that RfC is the only way of discussing a proposal. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:03, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

  For a low-traffic page, that's not a completely unreasonable belief. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:10, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

  False, see WP:SEEKINPUT. Elevating RfCs over all other methods of getting more input leads to a lot of wasted time and effort. Polygnotus (talk) 01:11, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

  Another common failure mode for RFCs worth considering is when the question doesn't actually address the real problem on the page (I touched on one form of this in an essay at WP:MOTTE, but it's important to understand that it can happen very easily by accident just because the people on the page are talking past each other.) If the question for the RFC isn't well-formulated, all the time spent answering it could be wasted; and it sometimes won't be clear that there's a problem unless you're knee-deep in the dispute. Sometimes an ill-formatted question can be fixed by responses to the RFC along the lines of "this RFC asks X, but I think the real underlying question is Y, so I'm gonna answer that" (common for eg. questions where "is this a WP:RS" and "is this WP:DUE" are confused), but it can be a bit rough and make for a pretty confusing or hard-to-close RFC, especially if you end up with a bunch of people answering different questions. --Aquillion (talk) 06:29, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

  +1 for a template. I think it adds a little heft to reinforce the consensus view of how to respond to either the preemptive close or a more gentle nudge that the RFC question needs some attention. I'd be happy to join on working on it. Dw31415 (talk) 23:44, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

  Generally speaking, if the proposed solution to an alleged problem is concentrating yet more power in the hands of a tiny few, it is a terrible idea.

  Not just on Wikipedia, also in real life.

  Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/FAQ is not supported by consensus and is mainly the work of 1 editor. Polygnotus (talk) 01:43, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

  I think a template would be better than one editor preemptively closing or another reverting the preemptive close, but open to ideas. I’d just like to see something change. Dw31415 (talk) 02:08, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

  Making a template available to everyone is the opposite of "concentrating yet more power in the hands of a tiny few".

  I have seen no evidence that the WP:RFCFAQ doesn't have consensus. I'm the person most likely to take the trouble to document the answers to common questions, but the answers are not just something I made up personally. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:12, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

  Then you won't mind if I put my personal opinion somewhere and then post an official-looking template everywhere to link to it which heavily implies my way is correct and supported by consensus while others are not...

  But of course you would object to that, because that would feel unfair to you. So you doing the same feels unfair to me.

  I'm the person most likely to take the trouble to document the answers to common questions And I think that it is really important that someone does that job, and a lot of your edits are improvements, but we do end up in a situation where less than a handful of people decide important stuff for everyone else.

  And that wouldn't be a problem if those people never got the wrong end of the stick. But in this particular case, these attempts to make RfCs unstoppable weapons are misguided and they will exacerbate the problems we already have with RfCs (low quality, misleading, unfair advantage for the starter, presenting limited options leads to inferior decisions compared to a discussion et cetera et cetera).

  And since your position is in the minority, even with some of these advantages, it is probably not a good idea to make even more changes against consensus.

  Again, if you want to handle this fairly, lets combine forces and make an RfC that presents both our views side by side and then we can let the community decide. Polygnotus (talk) 12:04, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

  I think an RfC on preemptive closes would be a good thing and suggest we workshop it in a new section here. Dw31415 (talk) 13:22, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

  Sounds like a good idea. There are a few things it would be good to get wider input on. Polygnotus (talk) 13:35, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

  That's a tricky kind of discussion to have, especially with semi-random editors. Maybe just start with a regular discussion? It might help us understand how to frame it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:28, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

  Yeah we started in the section below with a regular discussion. Please do not start an RfC. Polygnotus (talk) 18:30, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

I'm against a "Bad RfC" template. If you don't happen to like me putting my opinion on an RfC, you're free to object rather than trying to limit my freedom to object. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 20:37, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Are you for or against preemptive closes (shutting down an RfC)? Like Talk:2025 Potomac River mid-air collision#c-Rosbif73-20260218095600-RfC: Should it be changed from American Airlines Flight 5342 to American Eagle F Dw31415 (talk) 01:47, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

That doesn't contain "Bad RfC". I thought from the thread title and the suggestion about finding a way to "deprecate" saying those words and the "template" proposal that this was about shutting down people like me who use those words. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:43, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

I started this conversation in hopes of reducing the occurrence of editors “shutting down” or “preemptively” closing RfC’s. I’m personally less concerned with “BadRfC !votes”. I’ve been waiting to see if a challenge arises to the current project page text, before making a concrete template suggestion. Your message is a good prompt that maybe it’s time to stop waiting. Dw31415 (talk) 19:24, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

"Free to object"...so long as the editors who are freely objecting don't use a template to do so? It's not like the template has any special consequences or power over the person posting a "bad RFC" !vote. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:03, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

• After reading above, broke out a new level 2 section on this page called "Changing the RfC question". I immediately reverted because I think there should be discussion about it first. Please see . Please let me know if I should have just left the edit (i.e. if BOLD applies here too). Dw31415 (talk) 13:23, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

  Bold edits to this page are allowed. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:16, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

In the RFCBEFORE section, would it be helpful to elaborate on "If you are not sure if an RfC is necessary, or about how best to frame it, ask on the talk page of this project"? Two possibilities:

• "Consider discussing your planned RfC question on the talk page or on this page's talk page, to see whether other editors have ideas for making it clearer, more concise, or more neutral, or whether they think an RfC is necessary or the right process." Then for #1 in RFCOPEN, add "and that you've considered workshopping the question" to the existing text. I think it could help to bring this possibility up sooner.
• Add some questions to ask oneself, drawing on some of the issues that S Marshall raised in his table above, perhaps including the next step as well. For example, "Is this issue a repeat of recent, relevant previous discussions? If so, another discussion may not be needed at this time." "Is an RfC the right process, or would it be more appropriate to use RM, MR, DRV, PM, etc.?" "Is it premature? Consider using a regular talk page discussion." Etc.

FactOrOpinion (talk) 22:02, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

The first point is currently made under WP:RFCNEUTRAL. One question is whether we want to scatter it all around the page (that might sound bad, but it's sometimes the right choice) or concentrate it in one spot.

The second point sounds a little WP:CREEPY for this page but sounds like a valuable expansion of Wikipedia:Writing requests for comment. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:28, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

In this case, I think it's best to scatter a bit. My guess is that editors who read this page are most often inexperienced creating an RfC (or perhaps they want to check something, such as whether modifying someone else's RfC question is allowed). I think it would help to say more than once that if you're having difficulty writing a brief, clear, neutral RfC question, consider workshopping the question before opening the RfC, and you can ask for help or feedback on this talk page or on the article's talk page (or policy talk page, etc., if the RfC is about a policy, ...). That way, if it doesn't sink in the first time, or they miss the suggestion in one location, hopefully they'll see it in another location. FactOrOpinion (talk) 17:54, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

I wonder how many RFC questions are explicitly workshopped in advance. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:49, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

• Part of the issue is that once an RFC gets going, it is very hard to fix issues with it or to close it early (unless it's a WP:SNOW situation.) For this reason I do think we should extend the benefit of the doubt to people who immediately lunge onto an RFC and close it right after it was opened, provided they articulate clear problems they have with it and are clearly working towards having a better RFC opened in a reasonable timeframe rather than just stonewalling. Yes, sure, that RFC could in theory have continued, but I don't think that that was a particularly great opening statement (to put it mildly) and I think taking a day or so to hammer out something better is not unreasonable. If a fatally-flawed RFC continues, we risk wasting the entire time that it's open and all the time and energy editors put into it. And it won't always be obvious to people at a glance what the problem is (one common form of fatally-flawed RFC asks a question that seems reasonable at a glance but which doesn't actually cover or resolve the underlying dispute on the page, which means that it can go for a month, get a bunch of people weighing in, then solve nothing regardless of how it's closed.) I think it's fair to give everyone involved in a dispute a chance to weigh in, which includes broad latitude to say "wait hold up" for at least a brief period of time provided they're not stonewalling and they articulate at least somewhat reasonable objections that point towards a potentially improved RFC. --Aquillion (talk) 06:29, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

  That does sometimes work, and I've even seen it work when the person stopping the RFC advertisements is a declared opponent of the RFC's proposal. But it often fails, sometimes very badly, so I'd rather that the 'loyal opposition' normally took a hint from WP:INVOLVED and found someone else to shut down a poorly conceived RFC. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:10, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

There are a bunch of things that it would be good to get input on.

This is a work in progress/brainstorm. Please do not yet ask for more input. My brain is old and slow and it needs a couple of days to think.

I also need to go through the history of this page to see the various ways in which RfCs were elevated to unstoppable weapons (e.g. WP:BADRFC was deleted, WP:RFCBEFORE was neutered (for example here), a sidebox was added and there was even an proposal for a new template to truly make RfCs unstoppable).

• Should one person just be allowed to change the rules for everyone without consensus?
• Should RfCs be like !votes or should the RfC template just be another way to draw attention to a discussion
• Should the person who starts the RfC get to choose the !voting options, if any, which makes it easy to present a false dichotomy
• Should the RfC starter get to post a long non-neutral introduction
• Should others be allowed to remove the RfC template when appropriate
• Should people be forced to follow RFCBEFORE (before it got neutered)
• Why not have an RfC where both sides present their view side by side

What else am I missing?

I actually had to make a tool that uses Claude to show how Wikipedia:Requests for comment evolved over time. Polygnotus (talk) 13:42, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Far too many RfCs end up a mess, and at least some of it is down to the issues you raise here. As the situation currently stands, it is way too easy to construct a 'loaded' RfC, one that asks an ambiguous question, or one that clearly isn't going to solve an underlying issue. As to how to how best fix this, I'm unsure. If it wasn't yet another layer of bureaucracy, some sort of formal system for approving RfC questions in advance might possible help, though no doubt people would find ways to game that too. At minimum, I think we need to make it clearer to people starting RfCs that if they are going to ask for the broader community's time and attention, they need to put some serious thought into what they are doing first. And make it clear that failing to do so is likely to waste their time as well as everyone else's, since a messed-up RfC is unlikely to resolve anything. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:19, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

@AndyTheGrump, I agree with you that these problems will always be with us. I think that part of our defense system has to rely on responding editors being smart and sensible.

You mention the importance of the underlying problems, and I think that's important to keep in mind when we talk about "bad" RFC questions. Sometimes the problem that needs solving isn't "What's the consensus?" but "I don't feel heard about ____". Accepting a loaded or biased RFC question may be the only way we can solve the underlying problem. Sometimes we have an editor who needs to be able to ask the community "Since WP:DAILYMAIL is obviously the most reliable source in the history of the universe, I propose that it be declared WP:GREL on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources", and then see what the community says, because a facially neutral question wouldn't make them feel like the community understood their view of The Daily Mail. Humans tend to believe that their view is the neutral, middle-of-the-road view, even if they're quite on the extreme end. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:23, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

It is hard to believe that 50 people need to get messaged to get an answer to that question.

And the couterpoint is obviously that a truly dedicated hardhead baddie will just keep starting more and more RfCs and waste more and more of the only precious resource we have, the willingness of volunteers to help out. Polygnotus (talk) 20:29, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

50 people won't get messaged, so you can stop worrying about that. FRS never notifies more than 15, and rarely does even 10.

The problem of the occasional "truly dedicated hardhead baddie" is addressed in Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Multiple simultaneous RfCs on one page. We created this "rule" (it's not even a rule, but just a factual statement of what's statistically normal) years ago because of two editors, neither of whom are with us any longer, and it's been gently pointed out to a couple of editors since then, all of whom have immediately adjusted their behavior to conform. While the scenario you describe isn't impossible, based on existing experience, it is extremely unlikely, and even if it did happen, experience shows that we already have the tools we need to address it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:40, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Well I have certainly wished for a way to stop someone with a Mohs 9-10 head from starting RfCs and there wasn't one (other than going to ANI, but their behaviour wasn't bad enough for that). They would laugh at a mere link to an information page; you'd need God himself to have a chance to convince them.

I'll read the Yapperbot code, thanks. Polygnotus (talk) 21:04, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

If they have more than one RFC open at a time, then put the links on this page, and let someone else have a chat with them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:08, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

In that case it was more a series of time-wasting RfCs IIRC. A huge timesink. Polygnotus (talk) 21:10, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

I suggest we stay away from:

Should one person just be allowed to change the rules for everyone without consensus?

Let’s assume good faith on those doing the hard work of trying to document the understanding of consensus and if the documentation has shifted from consensus, we, as a community, should take ownership for not having more discussion about it. I generally get the sense that the few editors being referred to are just out here doing the hard work and we owe them gratitude for that work. Dw31415 (talk) 16:13, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Agreed, and I have also expressed my gratitude for that work. Especially because it is the kinda stuff I would find horribly boring.

Note also that I disagree with (or can find ways to improve) at least half my edits, so I'll happily admit my shit stinks.

I try to keep the "Main" slice of the XTools piechart as large as possible.

But we shouldn't end up in the situation that the rules for everyone are decided by less than a handful, and if that happens the way to counteract that is to point out that n=1 is worthless. And I think this topic is important enough to request far wider input (but not yet, still working on that, may take a few days). Polygnotus (talk) 16:31, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

One idea: Add (more) delay to when FRS sends it’s notification. On the above topic/RfC, I could have helped the nominator format the question because I follow the page. Instead I learned about the RfC through FRS and found another editor (from FRS) had preemptively closed because of lack of RFCBEFORE. That happened to be inaccurate because of 5 previous discussions on the RfC question. That said, the question had a major RFCNEUTRAL issue which could have easily been fixed. Adding a delay to FRS would give involved editors a chance to tidy up the question before it gets broadcast. Dw31415 (talk) 17:14, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Or even have a special section on RFS where people can sign up who are willing to give feedback on future RfCs so that the bot can give those people a day or 3 to improve the RfC before it goes live. I think there are quite a few people who would be willing to help. Polygnotus (talk) 17:16, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

We've said for years that editors starting RFCs are invited to ask for help in writing the question on this talk page, and while we get more such requests than we used to, it's still on the order of 1% of RFCs. Most people who are starting RFCs don't believe that they need help. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:06, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Most people who are starting RFCs don't believe that they need help. I fully agree. So in this comment the workflow is: RfC created -> smaller group of people makes improvements -> RfC advertised to a larger group of people. This would sidestep the issue that people assume they know it all.

And sure, some people have a very complete understanding of the topic they want to start an RfC about. But many do not. Polygnotus (talk) 20:12, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

About an RfC where both sides present their view side by side: This is listed as an option in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Example formatting#Pro and con. Very few RFCs have ever used that option. RFC questions are usually simpler than that (more "Shall we do this or not?" than "Shall we do this, with these three arguments in favor, or that, with those three arguments in favor?"). WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:05, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Often the person who starts the RfC does not have a complete understanding of the topic (or, if you prefer a bad faith explanation, want to push people in a direction) which means they often do not ask the right question, do not provide the right context and do not offer the right choices.

The worst on that page is clearly "Separate votes from discussion" which sidesteps Wikipedia's consensus forming mechanism in favour of voting. Do you mind if I remove that one?

The second-worst is Separate support and oppose opinions because people will just form an opinion based on the original post and then post in their preferred section without reading the other comments. Do you mind if I remove that one? Polygnotus (talk) 20:27, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Pushing in a particular direction is only a bad-faith behavior if the pushy person believes that direction will harm Wikipedia.

I suggest that you not remove any sections that describe styles that get used regularly and/or in highly publicized RFCs. You give the Zak Smith RFCs as an example below, and Talk:Zak Smith#RfC: Sexual abuse allegations (the second one) uses the "Separate votes from discussion" format. Large RFCs (also WP:RFA) such as Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Deployment of Vector (2022)#Support used the "Separate support and oppose opinions" format.

I think these should be used only for a minority of RFCs, but they should not be hidden or banned. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:05, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Pushing in a particular direction is only a bad-faith behavior if the pushy person believes that direction will harm Wikipedia. Intentionally (trying to) feed people misinformation in an attempt to influence them is pretty badfaithed in my book.

I can't imagine a scenario in which these formats would be superior to a freeform discussion (and I think that neither of the examples above benefit from these formats, compared to a normal discussion). Polygnotus (talk) 21:13, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Pushing in a particular direction ≠ feeding people misinformation. I push people in the direction of using WP:MEDRS-compliant sources for Wikipedia:Biomedical information. That's "pushing people in a particular direction" but not "feeding people misinformation". Even if the people in question have Pathological demand avoidance and hate feeling "pushed", it's still not a bad-faith action or misinformation. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:51, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

Agreed. But you can probably imagine a hypothetical situation in which an RfC opening statement attempts to misinform potential commenters/voters in order to push them in a particular direction. Polygnotus (talk) 00:58, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

In my experience, we have very few deliberate "attempts to misinform". We have many people who are attempting to properly inform – to the best of their understanding and ability, which often turns out to be poor understanding and limited ability. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:14, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

Well, I gotta admit that it is impossible to read the minds of the various weirdos with internet connections (thank God!). But sometimes my spider-sense just tingles, you know? Polygnotus (talk) 01:16, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

An editor who is involved with the Magan content dispute is claiming that an RfC I started (Talk:Feeding Our Future § RFC: Kayseh Magan and Hamse Warfa's commentary) is "invalid" and "biased". Asking here to get opinions from uninvolved editors to see whether that's really the case. Some1 (talk) 00:03, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

@Some1, overall I think the question is acceptable.

I also think this is a good example of why we should avoid providing pre-set answers, because if someone changes what "A" means, then the responses are all confused. If the other editor had to type out their actual view in plain old English, then there could be no such confusion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:37, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks WhatamIdoing, I'll go ahead and remove the A, B, C, D from the RfC question. Some1 (talk) 00:41, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

I think I know the answer to this question, but would like another opinion. An editor started an RFC, and did not include any categories in the {{RFC}} template. An error message shows up on the talk page along with the RFC. The RFC does have an RFC ID. If another editor adds categories to the template, will the bot notice that the RFC has been categorized, and add the RFC to the lists for those categories? Robert McClenon (talk) 20:47, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

I think Redrose told me it would. I’d add it (I have in the past). That doesn’t necessarily mean that FRS will notify the category though. Dw31415 (talk) 21:53, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yes, add one or more category parameters, and Legobot will add it to the relevant lists next time it runs (it's often forgotten that once an hour Legobot looks at every page with a transclusion of {{rfc}}, if only to check the expiry). But the RfC will remain in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Unsorted unless the |rfcid= is removed. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:58, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Why is Absolutiva inserting themself into a twenty-year old featured article without discussion? I found no several discussions above, only edit summaries and an RfC. I believe the talk page is the correct place to discuss disagreements. Can this RfC please be closed? Thank you. -SusanLesch (talk) 14:26, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

The tag has been removed. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:06, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. -SusanLesch (talk) 23:13, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

I have received a note on my user talk page saying: I'm thinking of requesting an RfC, but it'd need to be based on Wiki policies, not simply the number of votes. I interpret that as meaning that the poster wants to request in advance that the closer pay little or no attention to the number of votes. I think that the poster is concerned that a majority of responders may make arguments that are not based on policies and guidelines. I am not sure that I understand the rest of the post. But my question is what should I reply to this poster? Are they making a reasonable request that I can help them with? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:27, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

I read the question on your talk page: User talk:Robert McClenon#c-Israell-20260320105500-RfC question.... I’d suggest they review RFCBEFORE and post a regular discussion topic first (or provide a link to one of it exists). Dw31415 (talk) 20:06, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

A little more digging seems to indicate that it’s the editor’s proposal is to include “songwriter” in the info box for Rihanna: Talk:Rihanna#c-Israell-20251125145800-Songwriter (in the infobox). Seems like an RfC is appropriate to me. This page is the appropriate forum to discuss potential RfC’s so maybe just tag them here. My take is that info box contents are one of the most super-majority-dependent areas of editing. So the editor should open the RfC knowing that it might not go their way, but it’s a good way to get editors less invested about this artist to comment. Dw31415 (talk) 20:17, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Isreall, Robert inquired here about your question to him. Please see my answer above. If your question was about the linked discussion, I recommend you draft an RfC in the existing discussion and give existing editors a chance to review it. Also decide which RfC category you might select. Robert, my apologies if I’ve overstepped. Dw31415 (talk) 12:47, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

Correcting ping: @Israell Dw31415 (talk) 16:36, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your assistance. I've now asked Robert to initiate the RfC. It ought to be noted that such an RfC should not solely be a majority vote... It must also consider the points made based on Wiki policies and the multiple sources provided. Israell (talk) 16:43, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

That is true of any RfC. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:59, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Why would Robert start one? From reading the discussion it seemed like you should start it if you want the change. Dw31415 (talk) 17:45, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Robert did offer, and frankly I think it might be better if he did, given that he is uninvolved. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:53, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

You might review this close in order to decide if it’s worth opening one. It details how little policy there is to guide infoboxes: Talk:George Formby#RFC: Should there be an infobox? Dw31415 (talk) 19:14, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, to those of you who tried to help me answer my question, which started because I was trying to help Israell, who had asked me an overly complicated question. I am finished here. I am no longer working on this dispute. I have come to the conclusion that the editor whom I was trying to help will complicate my efforts to help them, by taking bad advice when I was trying to figure out what advice to give them. I don't know who advised them that they should try arbitration. I have known for decades that it is a waste of my time to give advice to someone who is taking turns whose advice they listen to. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:22, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello. I started a discussion on the talk page for FBI files on Michael Jackson about how readers should find information on sexual abuse allegations. Link to discussion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:FBI_files_on_Michael_Jackson#RfC:_Navigation_structure_for_Michael_Jackson_abuse_accuser I seem to have messed up the formatting - not sure what i did wrong Bhdshoes2 (talk) 13:12, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

You need to pick a category (not “content”) from Wikipedia:RFCOPEN Dw31415 (talk) 16:34, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Following this comment by @Athanelar: would it be a good idea to rename WP:RFCBEFORE to WP:RFCALT (and adjust the section title), to avoid people mistaking it for a mandatory workshopping phase by analogy with WP:BEFORE? Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 18:28, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

I'd support an additional RFCALT shortcut, but I oppose removing RFCBEFORE. As discussed in Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment#Ways to handle Bad RfC and other previous discussions, there are a lot of cases where the editor either should have done more before discussion, or other editors feel there should have been more "before". Dw31415 (talk) 18:37, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

In that case, should it be mentioned somewhere? Because right now, the section WP:RFCBEFORE points to doesn't mention this at all. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 18:46, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Yes, this is the salient point. If people think there should be a mandatory workshopping phase for RfCs, that's a separate rule which needs to be instituted. The current section only says that the 'before' steps are alternatives you could explore instead of using editor time on an RfC. WP:WORKSHOP could be a new requirement, but as it stands the term 'RFCBEFORE' is misleading. Athanelar (talk) 18:52, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

In fact, this process was WP:BOLDly suggested here by @The ed17, but reverted by @Giraffedata, and it could be good to hold a broader discussion to know whether there is consensus to recommend this process (or even to make it a requirement). Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 18:55, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

My suggestion, then, would be that we open an RFC to determine whether there is consensus to make it mandatory for people to workshop before submitting an RfC. If there is, then we write a new section and redirect the RFCBEFORE shortcut there, and move the content currently at RFCBEFORE to a new section provisionally shortcutted RFCALT. If there isn't, then we just do the latter. Either way, the content currently at RFCBEFORE needs to be moved somewhere less misleading. Athanelar (talk) 19:29, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

I presume an RfC should leave an option for the status quo, even if it might not be likely to succeed. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 19:37, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Yes, quite right. Athanelar (talk) 19:48, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Glad to see someone thinks the language that Giraffedata called "vacuous" could be beneficial. After an insulting comment like that, I didn't care enough to carry it forward. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 20:09, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

I like your edit. More generally a favor a mandatory draft RfC phase. Dw31415 (talk) 01:18, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

I think there are editors who would benefit from taking Ed's advice. I also think those editors are unlikely to recognize that Ed's advice is relevant to them. (Make sure it's appropriate? Of course my RFC is appropriate!) WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:53, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

Doesn’t mention at all? I think this text in the section addresses: 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. If a local discussion does not answer your question or resolve the problem.. Dw31415 (talk) 11:59, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

The core of the issue is that the section addresses alternatives to RfCs for dispute-resolution, which is different from workshopping a RfC. For instance, when proposing a new policy, a local discussion between a few editors wouldn't be an alternative. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 12:31, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

Giving some context here. This is popping up now because, in the last 6 months, there have been two LLM PAG-related RfCs without any pre-RfC workshopping and one RfC with a rushed pre-RfC workshopping phase. Starting an RfC to modify our PAGs without prior community workshopping is concerning for a few reasons, as it may lead to lower quality proposals, increase the burden on the closer (for example if they have to assess consensus for a modification to what was originally proposed, as looks likely here), and (even though I am sure this is not the intention in the examples referenced above) may be a kind of supervote on our PAGs by the RfC creator. NicheSports (talk) 13:46, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

@NicheSports, those complaints should be considered violations of WP:PROPOSAL rather than violations of the RFC rules.

My impression (and I glance at more RFCs than most editors) is that RFCBEFORE complaints largely fall into two categories: "I don't want to have an RFC about this at all" (e.g., because this seems too unimportant to me; because this could be resolved another way; because I don't want outside scrutiny of this page) and "I'm going to lose, so I'm looking for a technicality to get this shut down". WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:38, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

Tbh I tend to think shutdowns along the lines of "we’ve discussed this to death" are genuine, disputes are exhausting esp. if repeating the same one again and again, but I guess you could add "… and my side won" to that Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 19:53, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that when prior discussions (RFCs or otherwise) have reached a conclusion, then repeated RFCs are not usually helpful. However, because Wikipedia is written by humans, it shouldn't be the "winners" of the previous ones who do the shutting down. The winners should cheerfully dogpile into the RFC with links to prior discussions, or alternatively ask for a completely WP:UNINVOLVED person to shut it down. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:14, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

Maybe we could explicitly say that regardless of context, RfCs can only be closed by those uninvolved in the dispute, and point involved editors to WP:AN and WP:CR? Technically this is an information page tho Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 20:17, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

We explicitly say that the OP can end their RFC at any time, so "RfCs can only be closed by those uninvolved in the dispute" is wrong.

The desired outcome in these complaints doesn't seem to be "closing". Which of these terms seems most like what you're looking for?

• End: The RFC template has been removed, and the bot removed it from central listings like Wikipedia:Requests for comment/All.
• Close: The discussion has been boxed up with a template such as Template:Discussion top to discourage further comments.
• Summarize: Someone has posted a comment summarizing the result of the discussion.

WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:21, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

I was under the impression people just want them closed with a Procedural close or similar summary. Maybe "Other than by being withdrawn, …" or similar? Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 21:32, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

When we shut down RFCs (e.g., because they're hopelessly malformed), we usually just remove the RFC tag and leave a comment explaining what we've done and why. These can be reverted (but that almost never happens, at least when I pull the tag), and the usual goal is to get it re-opened in a functional form. By comparison, "procedural close" sounds more official or formal, like you would have to get permission to re-open it.

What do you think would happen next? The steps so far are:

• There's a dispute.
• Someone starts an RFC to resolve it.
• Someone else unilaterally boxes it up and drops a Procedural close or similar summary at the top.
• Now what?

WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:45, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

The OP gets WP:DROPTHESTICK cited at them and stonewalled (rightly or wrongly). The convention seems to be that an RfC less than 6 months after the previous exact-same one gets closed, maybe we could add that? (as in that's the only appropriate context to shut down an RfC besides removing the tag to workshop some more or do more local discussion) Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 22:53, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

This might have some unforeseen edge cases, as it means someone could close an RfC citing on a lack of workshopping, and, once workshopped, close it again citing this rule. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 23:15, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

The convention is 6 months, with editors allowed to ignore this. Past discussions have shown minority support for 12 months.

Repeated RFCs are not a very common problem. Unless you have a few recent examples at hand, I'd consider this WP:CREEP.

If the rule is written as "the previous exact-same one", then people will slightly re-phrase and be free to have another go, which does not solve the perceived problem. If it's defined more broadly, then legitimate repeats (e.g., new sources provide significant new information) will be stopped by editors in the loyal opposition.

You'd have to write the rule as "reaching a consensus" to prevent some edge cases (e.g., 'procedural' close followed by 'duplicate RFC' close; or no consensus, so now dispute resolution is prohibited from making any progress for the next six months).

But mostly I go back to the question of whether this is actually a problem. One expects a certain amount of this (e.g., in geopolitical disputes), but some of those need ArbCom to impose a moratorium, and a general rule just doesn't seem to be needed. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:42, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

I'll try to do a mock up maybe tomorrow of an RFCBEFORE section for you to pick apart :) Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 23:47, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

Kowal, do you think that telling the OP to drop the stick and stonewalling is going to resolve the dispute? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:33, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

In a WP:OAM situation, there's no real way to resolve disputes, people just accept they 'lost' or get sanctioned for being disruptive. RfCs are meant to stop a small partisan clique from controlling the article by getting input from the wider community, and I think we need to put trust in that. The vast majority of the time it works really well (imo making an RfC when met with an uncompromising POV pusher is always better than having lengthy disputes, both for the article and editor). In cases where the community is generally partisan on an issue, there's really nothing we can do about that, it's just systemic bias, which needs more meta solutions re blocking, like bringing diversity of POVs in a topic area into consideration etc. Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 23:44, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

I assume you meant User:Guy Macon/One against many instead of Wikipedia:Online Ambassadors/Mentors.

I agree that one of the things RFCs are meant to do is to stop a small partisan clique from controlling the article by getting input from the wider community. How does authorizing the partisan clique to shut down RFCs, or to limit the number of times per year that the wider community can be invited to provide input, help meet that goal?

What if the OP is not a lone POV pusher? What if the problem is "several against many", or "more or less half the community on each side"? Consider Talk:Pregnancy/Archive 4#Lead image RfC and related discussions; there were multiple RFCs, more or less back-to-back, plus many other discussions before that finally got settled. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:23, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Partisan cliques can only shut an RfC down if there was a recent RfC where the community affirmed their position (or if the RfC were malformed), so if they are truly partisan, then that's systemic bias in the community (or there was some dark arts, in which case ANI reports etc.). Limiting the number of RfCs is a trade-off between WP:CCC and WP:EDITORTIME (both the community's and local editors'). Tbh, worst case scenario, I don't think a slanted article for 6 months is that big of a deal, and the eventual comeuppance reflects awfully on those who caused the slant. One issue is that the shutdown of attempts can be treated as resetting the clock (which can be addressed in a RFCBEFORE). We need some guidance on moratoriums, they should really be done at WP:AN instead of locally Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 10:02, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

It's not a good experience in terms of social rules for your opponents to declare that you aren't allowed to talk to the wider community. Under some circumstances, this amounts to authorizing the playground bullies to prevent their victim from seeking help. They are always the wrong people to do that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:41, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

The alternative is constant RfCs until one 'side' gets burnt out or bored, no? It’s endurance rather then strength of argument Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 16:47, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

I think the alternative is having an WP:UNINVOLVED person shut down pointless RFCs. And, as the Pregnancy case indicates, sometimes you need two or three RFCs in a row. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:11, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Agreed. How does User talk:Kowal2701/sandbox#RFCBEFORE look? Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 17:47, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Tbh, worst case scenario, I don't think a slanted article for 6 months is that big of a deal. For articles, yes, but a 6 month delay can be problematic for wider project-scale issues, and make it so that Wikipedia can't change at the right timescale to address quickly developing threats. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 15:47, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

see for instance Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 23:50, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

If the OP can end their RfC at any time then they can close it when 51% is reached. A terrible system of course. Polygnotus (talk) 22:28, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

There's nothing terrible about it at all, especially since this isn't the German-language Wikipedia, so 51% means nothing. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:40, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

If there is nothing terrible about the current system, why do people keep trying to fix it? To me it seems that the one thing almost everyone agrees on is that the current RfC system is pretty bad. Even if they strongly disagree on ways to improve it. Polygnotus (talk) 22:43, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

I don't think people keep trying to fix that. I think everyone wants the OP to be able to withdraw their question, especially if it looks like it will fail to gain consensus.

To me, it seems that you are the only person who thinks the current system is pretty bad, and that your main complaint is that you can't get official permission to unilaterally close RFCs when you strongly oppose the proposal in the RFC. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:48, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

It is generally considered bad form to strictly rely on ad hominems. It would be cool if you could make an effort to not do that. If I am wrong and my argument is so terrible, you surely don't need such tactics, right?

And the one time there was a discussion about this your view was in the minority. Polygnotus (talk) 22:54, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

This thread has at times been quite productive (such as resurfacing the forgotten scroll) but this exchange has already been hatted below and I think (gentle suggestion Polygnotus) could either happen somewhere else or not at all. Speaking of, @WhatamIdoing, I plan to message you at your talk page (hopefully ok) as I have several questions! NicheSports (talk) 22:59, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

Indeed. I keep hoping for a more civilized discussion where we can try to understand eachothers point of view a bit more.

I already gave up once because of the repeated ad hominems, but then the situation got even worse.

Ideally we would go to a status quo ante bellum and then have a civilized discussion. But it is more likely I'll just get bored of the lack of productivity again. Polygnotus (talk) 23:07, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

Polygnotus is many things, but partisan they are not Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 22:55, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

I disagree with myself in like 49% of cases. So I am usually pretty easy to convince, if you have good arguments. Polygnotus (talk) 22:57, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

Ha! What do you know, it already exists and looks amazing. NicheSports (talk) 19:53, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

Can I plug this, basically something to put in RFCALT that for complex disputes (ie. not binary), it may be better to solicit input to the discussion from relevant noticeboards (like WP:NPOVN, WikiProjects etc.) and do consensus building with more participants (which RfCs are famously awful for) Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 20:02, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

No, RFCBEFORE is mandatory, and that should stay that way. Polygnotus (talk) 21:50, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

You should probably read what WP:RFCBEFORE actually says. It is neither mandatory nor is it anything to do with workshopping an RFC before you launch it. Athanelar (talk) 22:02, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Yeah it was recently changed against the consensus. Polygnotus (talk) 22:06, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

As I pointed out above, the page was recently edited to add something about RfC workshopping, but that was reverted an hour later. As far as I know, it doesn't seem to have been there before. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 22:15, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

I am happy to explain the situation in more detail on Discord; its a long story. Polygnotus (talk) 22:40, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

I spot checked a revision of WP:RFC from February 2025 and RFCBEFORE was largely the same at that time; it still said Editors should try to resolve their issues before starting an RfC. and says nothing about a mandatory workshopping phase. Athanelar (talk) 00:38, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

Yeah I have some code somewhere that uses Claude to check how a PaG page evolved over time. The code is far from production-ready tho. Polygnotus (talk) 02:52, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

I tried using Copilot to see how the should vs must debate evolved. It seemed to summarize something in 2014-2016 but couldn’t produce links to any history or discussion. Dw31415 (talk) 03:01, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

When the RFCBEFORE shortcut was first added eight years ago, the advice was:

Before using the RfC process to get opinions from outside editors, it's often faster and more effective to thoroughly discuss the matter with any other parties on the related talk page. Editors are normally expected to make a reasonable attempt at working out their disputes before seeking help from others. If you are able to come to a consensus or have your questions answered through discussion with other editors, then there is no need to start an RfC.

It's the words "normally expected to make a reasonable attempt" that are (to me) important here. I still see people jumping straight to RfC without any indication that anything else has been attempted. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:39, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, at points the page was far more clear than that about requiring some due diligence. But a minority disagreed with that. Polygnotus (talk) 10:00, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

There are ultimately cases where RfC is the unavoidable way forward; like when proposing a new policy/guideline, there is nothing else to attempt, gaining community consensus is mandatory.

This is where people usually erroneously quote RFCBEFORE to tell editors that they should workshop their RfC before they run it to make sure that they're clear on what its goals are, what terminology they're going to use, to iron out any loopholes in their proposed wording etc etc; but of course RFCBEFORE has nothing to do with any of that, and that's the crux of the discussion here; whether that specific norm should itself be enshrined into PAG or not. Athanelar (talk) 08:50, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

If you use Wikipedia's terrible search system and you look for RfC in which people said "BADRFC" or "BEFORERFC" you'll find that those people are basically always correct.

In a tiny minority of cases I was unsure if they were correct or not. And in the few cases that I disagreed with them no harm was done, it is not like any normal user can forbid another user to start RfCs forever so there was a bit of discussion and then an RfC started, usually a better one. Polygnotus (talk) 22:24, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

@Chaotic Enby, I like the idea of an WP:RFCALT shortcut. I suggest handling it as an "addition" instead of a "replacement".

The section heading could be changed to something like ==Alternatives to consider before starting an RFC== (thus incorporating both). WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:53, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

Maybe we could have a separate small section for RFCBEFORE which only gives advice on workshopping RfCs, along with the first para of the current section. RFCALT can then talk about other options. Would that address your concern about RFCBEFORE being weaponised? Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 13:43, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

Speaking in terms of the general climate and policy writing practices, words like "normally expected to make a reasonable attempt" tend to be interpreted as "is absolutely mandatory unless certain very unusual or carefully specified conditions are met, and I am allowed to edit war your effort away if you don't" in a surprising number of situations. Think, e.g., of editors who insist that all articles must cite a source, when WP:V doesn't say that and every proposal to change that has been rejected by the community. They know they're on the side of truth and righteousness, so fiddly little details like "normally" (or, in the case of WP:V, WP:LIKELY) have no meaning.

One of the ways that we mitigate this is providing information about what's "popular", rather than what's supposed to be done. Most editors want to follow the ordinary practice, so if you tell then that _____ is popular, they'll choose that, but they're less likely to mistake "popular" for "required".

Which takes us to the main problem: Most people don't workshop their RFCs in advance, and that usually works out really well.

The first five RFCs in Category:Wikipedia requests for comment at the moment are:

• Talk:2026 Iran war#RfC about the label for countries struck by Iran – prior discussion (though the OP didn't participate in it); RFC not workshopped
• Talk:Susan Abulhawa#Request for comment – prior discussion; RFC briefly discussed with one suggestion about how to phrase it
• Talk:Act III: This City Made Us#RFC: Description and inclusion of pregap track – substantial prior discussion between three editors failed to reach consensus; RFC discussed but not workshopped
• Talk:Ashkenazi Jews#RfC: "the Ashkenazim originate from the Israelites and Hebrews of historical Israel and Judah" in WikiVoice? – substantial prior discussion failed to reach consensus; RFC not workshopped
• Talk:Bassnectar#Request for Comment: Scope and due weight of the "Legacy" section – poorly watched page; prior discussion between two editors; RFC not workshopped

This feels pretty typical to me. Most of the time, there has been some attempt to discuss the problem before starting an RFC, and most of the time, the RFC isn't workshopped (meaning the wording of the RFC question isn't discussed). That means we'd be imposing a rule on the community to change their collective behavior, and that almost never works out. I would oppose such a proposal, and (separate from my own views) I do not think it has a realistic chance of getting adopted.

WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:10, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

Most people don't workshop their RFCs in advance, and that usually works out really well. Then why do so many RfCs suck so much? If RfCs are usually perfect, basically no one would want to close them, because perfection requires a balance.

Also why do you keep insisting that those awesome perfect RfCs would somehow be destroyed if people were allowed to express the opinion that they are WP:BADRFCs (which you had deleted Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2025_March_1#Wikipedia:BADRFC) or were allowed to say "we should probably talk about this for a bit before we start an RfC".

If there is no problem to be fixed, why does a majority of the community believe there is? And why can't they overrule one person? Polygnotus (talk) 22:20, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

I disagree with your belief that many RFCs suck. What is your evidence for this claim?

I disagree that a majority of the community believes there is a problem to be fixed. What is your evidence for this claim? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:31, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

If we can agree on an armistice I am still willing to explain my point of view and how I reached my conclusions. But it would probably be best to start a new section to not derail this too much. If you want to keep fighting I'll go do something more productive. My evidence for the claim that there are quite a few RfCs that suck is that I read a bunch. I focused mostly on those where I felt I could quickly form an opinion. My belief that people think that there is a problem to be fixed is that a majority disagreed with you in that discussion and that people keep tinkering with the process, it is not "stable". Polygnotus (talk) 23:35, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

I also read a bunch of RFCs, and I conclude from reading them that only a few that have significant flaws. Unlike you, I don't focus on the ones that sound like they'll be quick to answer. (If something's reached the RFC level, it is less likely than average to be quick and easy to answer.) I know that @Redrose64 also reads many RFCs when they're posted; maybe they could share their impression. Or maybe you could post ~5 examples of current RFCs that you believe suck.

There were 14 participants in Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Archive 23#Bad RFC votes. Most of the comments had nothing to do with whether your undiscussed bold addition to WP:RFCEND was a good idea. Others show clear and direct support for keeping RFCBEFORE "optional". Consider, e.g., @Aquillion: "I would be strenuously opposed to making RFCBEFORE mandatory (and I'm under the impression that this has been discussed and settled at length?)" and Blueboar: "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." WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:27, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Well, you are clearly not ready to stop fighting. Pinging people to try to get more on your side is perhaps not the greatest strategy ever, nor is misrepresenting history.

If you ever decide you are ready you can ping me. Polygnotus (talk) 03:55, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Half of that discussion was about whether it's fair to ping people when you quote them. There, I got yelled at for not pinging people. Now you complain that I did. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:04, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

And, because you can never say such things often enough, I disagree strongly on this one subject but you do good work in other areas. Polygnotus (talk) 04:30, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Since WAID mentioned me… I will re-iterate my opinion on RFCBEFORE (which I expressed in more detail in previous discussions): I support stating it as advice - I oppose making it mandatory. Blueboar (talk) 11:37, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

• I mean, RFCs serve, among other things, as a pressure-release valve for some of the highest-tension disputes on Wikipedia (and real-world disputes that leak into Wikipedia.) They serve as a way to settle long-running disputes where editors are often very entrenched and feel strongly about the outcome. It's to be expected that there would, therefore, sometimes be editors unhappy with specific RFC outcomes - but I don't think that the RFCs are causing this problem, or making it worse; the issue is that some of the highest-profile RFCs are for things where any outcome would inevitably have a lot of people feeling upset. The fact that RFCs serve such a load-bearing role in so many high-profile situations is, I think, also a reason to be skeptical of any drastic changes that aren't very well explained. I think there's some room for improvement, but it's mostly in the form of soft encouragement for specific sorts of things and discussion of some of the ways RFCs can go awry. Overall, though, RFCs seem to mostly be working, in terms of eg. settling editorial disputes in a reasonable timeframe, or avoiding situations where disputes over a single sentence or somesuch consume endless editorial time and energy forever, or things like that. If you think that RFCs are actually making things worse you'll have to actually put together that argument. If you're going to say the majority of the community thinks there's a problem, though, I'm definitely going to slap a {{citation needed}} on that. --Aquillion (talk) 03:51, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

  Well of those who actually responded of course, I didn't go to everyone's house with a clipboard. 52m Wikipedia accounts. Polygnotus (talk) 03:57, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

I just learned that there's a tag now for the addition/removal of the {{rfc}} template. It displays as "Tag: RfC discussion" in the edit summary. Did this tag exist before March 5? Some1 (talk) 23:08, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

I think Polyg added that. There was some discussion about it but I can’t remember if that was here. Dw31415 (talk) 00:05, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

@Polygnotus: mentioned here Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment#c-Polygnotus-20260305003300-Dw31415-20260222110400. I can’t remember the exact context but I think it was around doing some research into how well formed the new RfC questions are. Dw31415 (talk) 03:00, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

@Some1 Did this tag exist before March 5? The filter did. It was created at 23:32, 4 March 2026 after my request here. I think the tag did not exist before March 5. Polygnotus (talk) 03:08, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

This RecentChanges filter will show all recent RFC creations, in date order. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:14, 26 March 2026 (UTC)