WhatamIdoing (talk | contribs) →Discussion: Numbers |
Renamed user mou89p43twvqcvm8ut9w3 (talk | contribs) →Oppose: re |
||
Line 114: | Line 114: | ||
*'''Oppose'''. Cunard has been more receptive to being discriminate in his listings recently, and I do appreciate that. Given that the majority of the problem seems to have passed, I now oppose a blanket rule. I've always considered a blanket rule to be a second choice to individuals being far more discriminate in their closings. {{re|Cunard}} As for a separate section at ANRFC for participant listings vs. non-participant listings, I would oppose that because I think it encourages editors to list as non-participants or encourages an "all RfCs must be closed" mentality. I would support creating a separate page entirely at [[WP:Requests for comment pending closure]] for discussions that aren't urgent or difficult to close. I wouldn't oppose linking to this from ANRFC under the backlogs section. ANRFC, as I see it, is meant as a place to get quick administrator (or experienced closer) attention on discussions that really need rapid closure. ~ <b>[[User:BU Rob13|Rob]]</b><sup>[[User talk:BU Rob13|Talk]]</sup> 18:33, 23 June 2016 (UTC) |
*'''Oppose'''. Cunard has been more receptive to being discriminate in his listings recently, and I do appreciate that. Given that the majority of the problem seems to have passed, I now oppose a blanket rule. I've always considered a blanket rule to be a second choice to individuals being far more discriminate in their closings. {{re|Cunard}} As for a separate section at ANRFC for participant listings vs. non-participant listings, I would oppose that because I think it encourages editors to list as non-participants or encourages an "all RfCs must be closed" mentality. I would support creating a separate page entirely at [[WP:Requests for comment pending closure]] for discussions that aren't urgent or difficult to close. I wouldn't oppose linking to this from ANRFC under the backlogs section. ANRFC, as I see it, is meant as a place to get quick administrator (or experienced closer) attention on discussions that really need rapid closure. ~ <b>[[User:BU Rob13|Rob]]</b><sup>[[User talk:BU Rob13|Talk]]</sup> 18:33, 23 June 2016 (UTC) |
||
** [[User:BU Rob13|The]] claim that Cunard is less indiscriminate now is something we could objectively verify. A year or two ago, when people first started complaining about this, he was mass-listing about 90% of RFCs (by his estimate, if memory serves). How much has it declined? [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 21:46, 25 June 2016 (UTC) |
** [[User:BU Rob13|The]] claim that Cunard is less indiscriminate now is something we could objectively verify. A year or two ago, when people first started complaining about this, he was mass-listing about 90% of RFCs (by his estimate, if memory serves). How much has it declined? [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 21:46, 25 June 2016 (UTC) |
||
***{{re|WhatamIdoing}} I can't verify the percentage, but I'm not talking about now vs. two years ago. I'm talking about this most recent listing vs. a month ago. The number of listings went down from roughly three dozen to more like a single dozen, all of which has at least some aspect that didn't seem 100% straightforward. I was the person who originally brought up this issue at AN, and I'm a strong opponent of the idea that we should close all RfCs, but Cunard is a good-faith effort. His listings are a net positive if and only if he continues to list them with some discrimination rather than blanket listing them all. Can I be sure that he isn't just temporarily adjusting due to this discussion? No, but I assume good faith and recognize that this can just wind up at a noticeboard as a pure behavioral issue if he were to go back to blanket listing immediately after this discussion concluded. I value Cunard's contributions as a whole and doubt things will get that far. ~ <b>[[User:BU Rob13|Rob]]</b><sup>[[User talk:BU Rob13|Talk]]</sup> 00:45, 26 June 2016 (UTC) |
|||
=== Discussion === |
=== Discussion === |
Revision as of 00:45, 26 June 2016
|
|||
This page has archives. Sections older than 180 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
CfD
Is it really necessary to list so many CfD discussions here? This seems redundant to the Discussions awaiting closure section there. If more closing needs doing at CfD then perhaps a note on WP:AN would be more appropriate than filling this page up with every old discussion. Pinging Lugnuts. Sam Walton (talk) 14:46, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
- The backlog was getting silly. It was raised at AN, but no-one looked at it. Since I've listed all the CfDs older than one month, several have now been closed. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 14:53, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
- I've just noticed you're an admin too! Maybe you could get stuck in and close a few while you're here? Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 15:05, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
- @Samwalton9: - how many CfDs have you closed since this was raised? Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 07:50, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
- @Lugnuts: None, nor have I done any other substantial editing. Sam Walton (talk) 08:39, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
- @Samwalton9: - how many CfDs have you closed since this was raised? Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 07:50, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
- That's super! One more onto the backlog pile this morning. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:41, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
- Look at that @Samwalton9: - the backlog slowly is clearing. You can thank me later. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 10:47, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
- Having cleaned up a number of CFDs, the fact that I have to then clean up both Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Awaiting closure and this page is redundancy (although *I* don't have to do it, still...). I'm fine with with listing them but we don't need a mountain of separate headings as I personally am just going to gloss it over at this point and it eats up the entire AN page header for no reason. List them under the CFD backlog page like at the awaiting closure section I say. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:16, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
- As someone who is actually closing CFDs, I removed the headers. MFD has a backlog of a few weeks too, we don't need to clog up this page with each individual listing. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 16:37, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
- @Samwalton9, Lugnuts, and Ricky81682: I've cleared the CfD backlog, mostly. It's down to 58 discussions as of this posting, and a good 30 are recent discussions that I'm working on clearing. There are a handful (15ish) discussions that go back all the way to February which I can't close, mostly due to my own participation. Now that the backlog is more reasonable, do you have any objection to listing specific discussions if and only if the usual closers at CfD can't close them and an outside closer is needed? That's far closer to the intended purpose of ANRFC than the mass listings from before. ~ RobTalk 18:08, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
- No objections and thanks for tackling the backlog, Rob. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 18:18, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
- No objections either. Maybe limit it to the February, and March ones which are the most urgent backlog. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:32, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Whether to keep WP:ANRFC transcluded to WP:AN: RfC at Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard#WP:ANRFC transclusion
There is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard#WP:ANRFC transclusion about whether to keep WP:ANRFC transcluded to WP:AN. Cunard (talk) 06:37, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
No consensus to remove unclosed close requests
Nyttend (talk · contribs) removed close requests with the edit summary "Stale". I have reverted. There is no consensus to remove unclosed close requests that have been listed on the board for between 12 and 64 days. Pinging the editors who had their closure requests removed: Godsy (talk · contribs), Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk · contribs), FreeatlastChitchat (talk · contribs), Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk · contribs), and Tom29739 (talk · contribs).
There is a previous discussion related to Nyttend's removals at Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure/Archive 2#Archiving and restoring removed request from User:Kahastok. Cunard (talk) 04:22, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
- This being a page for requesting admin action, don't restore requests that have already been answered. Go ask someone privately and don't continue clogging up a board with requests over a month old; you may have noticed that this is how we handle similar old-and-not-answered things at pages like WP:RFPP and WP:AN3. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive278#ANRFC_again; if you continue spamming ANRFC with requests and/or reverting admins when they remove piles of requests, a block will be sought as a method of ensuring that you don't continue making ANRFC useless. Nyttend (talk) 05:01, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
- Your revert using rollback is a violation of Wikipedia:Rollback#When to use rollback. If a non-admin were to misuse rollback in that fashion, their rollback would be revoked.
Wholesale removing six users' good faith close requests because they are in your view "stale" is unconstructive and unacceptable.
Closers at WP:ANRFC always have handled older closure requests. That is the existing consensus. It is unacceptable to edit war to impose your personal view on the board against this existing consensus. The disputes and policy questions do not disappear with the passage of time. In fact, discussions that linger the longest on WP:ANRFC likely are the most contentious and the ones that most need assessment of consensus by an uninvolved party.
- Your revert using rollback is a violation of Wikipedia:Rollback#When to use rollback. If a non-admin were to misuse rollback in that fashion, their rollback would be revoked.
- First of all, I highly disagree with the sentiment of "go ask someone privately", Nyttend. This forum is the proper place to request closures for the sake of procedure and neutrality; asking an administrator you're friendly with opens the door to canvassing accusations among other things, while asking one your unfamiliar with could yield the same result, and in all likelyhood they'd point you here to list your close. There is no good recourse if a close is still needed when a request is delisted from this noticeboard. Secondly, an issue with my close specifically: "don't restore requests that have already been answered", my closure request had a comment, it had in no way been answered (MediaWiki talk:Move-redirect-text#Redr). As such, I'm restoring it. If the accusations of rollback use in this situation are true, it's against policy and in poor taste. I generally concur with the opinion of Cunard above.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 08:10, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
The whole point of AN/RFC is to ask for admins to close RFCs which may be controversial, and the requests that have been open the longest are usually the ones that no-one wants to close because the RFC is contentious, or because there is no clear consensus. It says on the main AN/RFC page 'Formal closure by an uninvolved editor or administrator should be requested where consensus remains unclear, where the issue is a contentious one, or where there are wiki-wide implications'. Editors are directed here to ask for formal closure because of the above, it doesn't matter how 'old' or 'stale' the RFC is. I also agree with the opinion of User:Cunard and User:Godsy as well. Just my 2p, Tom29739 [talk] 16:35, 15 March 2016 (UTC).
Cunard brought the requests back "anew" so I'm happy with that(I were incorrect, apparently there are two requests for closure for the same discussion at Political correctness), but yeah it wouldn't be logical to simply close them as "stale". One closer once explained his closure with the request for closure having been the oldest one on the list. They do get taken care of eventually, but actually solving disagreements on Wikipedia takes a while. It's not an enjoyable job so you've got to give these people time and space and not rush it. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 21:39, 15 March 2016 (UTC)- I agree with Godsy (talk · contribs) that privately approaching an admin to ask for a closure could lead to accusations of impropriety and non-impartiality. I privately approached an admin in the past in April 2011 at User talk:Jayron32/Archive19#Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Tenmei. The admin told me he was concerned about non-impartiality accusations and told me to post in a public forum.
I agree with Tom29739 (talk · contribs) that it doesn't matter how "old" or "stale" an RfC is. They still should be closed so that dispute and policy questions are answered instead of being dismissed. XfD discussions like WP:AFD, WP:CFD, WP:TFD, and WP:FFD are not ignored because they are "old" or "stale". For example, WP:CFD currently has a backlog dating to 5 January 2016, which is 71 days ago. This is older than the oldest ANRFC request, which is 65 days ago.
I agree with Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk · contribs) that requests "do get taken care of eventually" and that we need to give closers "time and space and not rush it". WP:ANRFC closers do an excellent job reviewing, assessing, and summarizing the consensus in contentious RfCs. I am grateful to them for their hard work.
I will restore the close requests because:
- the existing consensus was not to ignore and remove unclosed "stale" RfCs and
- there is a clear consensus here not to disturb that existing consensus.
- I also agree. Further, approaching even publicly, or openly pinging individuals, encouraging them to close any contested discussion, creates the appearance of gaming, destroys the appearance of impartiality. Requests for closure should be done only at this central location. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:51, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Requested move 23 March 2016
- The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: withdrawn. Too many potential problems. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 13:55, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure → Wikipedia:Requests for closure noticeboard – Any uninvolved editor may close most discussions, so long as they are prepared to discuss and justify their closing rationale.
If so, why is this noticeboard at a subpage of WP:AN? It gives a sense that this noticeboard is designed for specifically asking admins to close discussions. sst✈ 08:21, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- Comment it sounds better, but what if administrator assistance is needed? Will a new AN noticeboard be created to replace this one ? -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 04:57, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Comment - not necessarily opposed, but this seems like a WP:DONTFIXIT situation. Threads that end up here are frequently ones that require admin closes. Also, why not just Wikipedia:Requests for closure? Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:48, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- I agree, I don't think where this currently resides is a problem. I don't like the idea of a change, but I'm not going to oppose based on that.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 19:45, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- There was an August 2013 move discussions at Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure/Archive 1#Suggested move to Wikipedia:Requests for closure. Pinging participants Nathan Johnson (talk · contribs), Tryptofish (talk · contribs), Vanisaac (talk · contribs), and EdJohnston (talk · contribs).
WP:ANRFC was created in October 2011 after this WP:AN discussion, where DeltaQuad (talk · contribs) requested a separate board. WP:AN had served as the precursor to WP:ANRFC in allowing users to list closure requests. I listed closures at WP:AN as did other editors.
Here is a list of October and November 2011 closures by the other editors: 1 2, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive228#Someone, please close this RFC, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive228#Closure of merge discussion, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive228#Another merger requires an uninvolved party, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive228#Outstanding AFD from September, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive228#An admin for closing a "let's just try again and again until they get tired" RfC, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive228#RfC uninvolved closure request..., Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive228#Closer requested, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive228#Closure needed, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive228#Poll in need of closing, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive228#Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2011 to close shortly, uninvolved admins needed to assess, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive228#Overdue RfC, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive228#RfC closure needed, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive228#Close request, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive228#Ditto, etc.
WP:ANRFC is an extension of WP:AN (where closure requests had been listed in the past). It was created to be a centralized list of closure requests. It prevented closure requests from getting prematurely archived by a bot from WP:AN because they weren't addressed within 48 hours.
I would prefer that the page stays at its current location as a subpage of WP:AN because a name change to Wikipedia:Requests for closure noticeboard would lessen the linkage between WP:AN and WP:ANRFC, giving a reason for opponents of WP:ANRFC transclusion on WP:AN to oppose transclusion. WP:ANRFC should remain transcluded on WP:AN because WP:AN has a higher visibility.
I don't think the page's being a subpage of WP:AN should discourage non-admins from closing discussions. Non-admins are some of the most prolific and experienced WP:ANRFC closers. As Vanisaac noted in the August 2013 discussion, "Certainly, closing discussions is not limited to administrators, but no other administrators' noticeboard is, either."
- Comment. Thanks for the ping. I'm fine with leaving it the way it is. I don't see a compelling reason to rename it, but if it is renamed, then WP:Requests for closure would be the best name. I think that it is useful to continue to have the page transcluded into WP:AN, although perhaps there is a better way to display it in the TOC there, because it takes up so many lines. As I said in the previous RfC, I think we should not go too far in encouraging editors in general to close contentious RfCs, because although it does not and should not require being an administrator, it does require having a greater-than-average amount of "clue". --Tryptofish (talk) 20:22, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- Comment and Weak Oppose just on the "if it ain't broke" principle. I'm just going to reiterate a few of the things that seemed to come up the last time this issue was brought forward. 1) ANRFC is functionally an administrative noticeboard: while many of the items do not specifically need a person with an administrator's permissions, it's still an administrative function being requested, and most importantly, a few of the closures will actually need administrator's permissions, so actual admins need to follow the content. 2) The name also preserves the noticeboard's history and intent, which was to move closure requests from the normal Admin's Noticeboard to a place with more forgiving automatic archive settings and allowing them to be organized by closure type instead of temporally. 3) Finally, the actual ANRFC page rather specifically notes that any uninvolved editor can close a discussion they are able to enact, so it seems like the justification for the move is based on the off chance that someone would make a rather convoluted assumption based on the page location while ignoring the explicit content of the page. It feels like a WP:SLOP, but I'd be happy to be shown differently. VanIsaacWScont 06:48, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
There is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment#Separate noticeboard for RFCs about creating a separate noticeboard for RfCs. Cunard (talk) 04:24, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
ClueBot III archiving error
See here for a bug discussion relevant to this board. ~ RobTalk 20:21, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
Remove AN and ANI notices from the RFC notices
Is there any reason to have notices to request a closure of discussions at WP:AN or WP:ANI here? My view has always been that if a discussion at AN or ANI goes to the archive, that means there's no admin consensus to do anything. Even if a discussion has gone to the archive, then a person can make a second post at the board asking about it going to the archives but if that second post goes to the archive without discussion, it's done. There is no reason why it should sit permanently like this link will when the discussion is in the archives. It's an extended third bite at the apple for something that, unless RFC, does require admins to close and presupposes that something is supposed to be done. I'd like a straw poll to support barring AN or ANI discussions from the RFC log. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:53, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose barring AN and ANI discussions from WP:ANRFC. The closure request Ricky81682 referred to in the proposal was listed by DrChrissy (talk · contribs) for Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive922#Clarification please: DrChrissy and human anatomy edits. I think it is a reasonable request for closure. It is not "an extended third bite at the apple". I read the ANI discussion and found that several admins and editors believe that edits to articles on human anatomy with no health or medical aspects are not covered by the topic ban. Based on the heated and accusatory comments by several of the involved editors in the discussion, it is clear that to avoid conflict and doubt DrChrissy should get a clear ruling from an uninvolved admin as to whether he can edit those articles.
WP:ANRFC is the correct place to request closure. A request at WP:AN or WP:ANI will be archived without action if an admin does not act on it in time. That no timely action has been taken does not mean DrChrissy should not get closure.
I list admin noticeboard discussions at WP:ANRFC when they are ready for closure so the discussions are not forgotten.
For example, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive278#Standard offer unblock request from Md iet was archived 02:19, 15 February 2016 (UTC) without a close. My close request at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure/Archive 21#Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive278#Standard offer unblock request from Md iet resulted 12 days later in an admin's closing the discussion and unblocking the editor 21:18, 27 February 2016 (UTC).
Another example, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive904#Continued Anti-Semitic concern trolling by User:Mrandrewnohome at the Reference Desks, was archived 02:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC) without a close. My close request at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure/Archive 20#Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive904#Continued Anti-Semitic concern trolling by User:Mrandrewnohome at the Reference Desks resulted 45 days later in an admin's closing the discussion 08:07, 30 December 2015 (UTC).
- Oppose barring AN/ANI from ANRFC, as I've seen cases where the listing unambiguously brought about an improvement to the situation. On the other hand, support allowing any editor to mark a AN/ANI discussion as Not done due to no required action. At that point, the recourse of the editor who listed the discussion would be to start another thread at AN/ANI asking for closure. ~ RobTalk 05:20, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
RFC: Require participants to add to RFC listings
As discussed at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment#Separate_noticeboard_for_RFCs, there were some consensus for adding a restriction to when an RFC can be added here. One discussion was that only participants in the RFC can add this to the backlog. As such, I'm proposing that no third-party who has not even commented in the RFC can just browse it and add it here. I'm going to ping everyone from the prior discussion to come here as it doesn't belong there anymore. @Cunard, WhatamIdoing, IJBall, BU Rob13, Ncmvocalist, and TParis:. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:20, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
Support
- Support. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:20, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
Support. Just yesterday, 33 discussions were listed at ANRFC by a single editor, who was involved in few (or possibly none) of them. I opened up a random five of them. Of the five, this and this are obvious closes. A third looks worth a close on the surface, but is actually a single editor being loud and bludgeoning the process. That editor was recently taken to AN, where he received a topic ban from the Four Noble Truths for disruptive contributions on that talk page. All the participants of that discussion knew about that topic ban, which is likely why they didn't bother listing the RfC themselves; they knew it wasn't an issue going forward. A fourth is a semi-obvious close; the outcome is very clear, but it hasn't been implemented yet, so a close might be worthwhile. I'm sorry, but 1-2 worthwhile closes out of every five is not indicative of hearing my concern. I appreciate that this rate is actually quite a bit better than before, but it's still not sustainable given the number of volunteers at ANRFC. In the one case I explained in detail above, any participant would know it shouldn't be listed. In the other three I linked, I trust the participants to figure out the solution themselves, but if they can't, they can list it. Based on this latest round, I have absolutely no choice but to support in the hopes that this is a long-term solution to the perpetual backlog. ~ RobTalk 05:32, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
- The four discussions you mentioned all should be closed:
1. Template talk:Anarchism sidebar#RfC: Anarcho-capitalism and its place in this template – I noted in the closure request that "There is a clear consensus to include anarcho-capitalism in the template, but the consensus is not as clear on where it should be placed in the template." That is why the consensus is not clear and a closure is warranted.
2. Talk:United Kingdom general election, 2015#Request for Comment: Which Infobox? (Choice of Two) – in the discussion, an editor wrote: "Yeah; we could let this run for another week or we could request closure now?" Another editor wrote: "WP:TIND, TIND, TIND. Let things run their course. Due process is worthwhile." I took these comments as requesting closure once the RfC expired. After the RfC expired, none of the participants listed the RfC at WP:ANRFC. Five days after the RfC expired, I listed it instead of closing it because of its contentious nature due to the edit warring.
3. Talk:Four Noble Truths#RfC on use of the word "redeath" in the article and lede for Four Noble Truths – the question posed in the RfC is reasonable. A roughly equal number of editors supported and opposed the proposal. That the opening poster was later topic banned does not mean the discussion from other good faith editors should be disregarded. A good faith experienced editor supported the topic banned editor's position. AfDs with significant participation like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United States presidential election, 2024 (2nd nomination) are assessed even when the AfD initiator has been blocked.
4. Talk:List of youngest birth mothers#RfC Teenage category – I don't consider the outcome to be clear. If the participants thought the outcome was clear, they would have made the change that you say is "semi-obvious". A close is needed so the participants have a clear path forward and can implement the consensus.
- Have you commented in any of these? I have this kind of arguments with the backlog at FFD and other places, people who just come around screaming that someone else do something when most of the FFD discussions have literally no comments. Better yet, why don't you close these? Being an admin isn't required. The first one is a gimme. In the time you've spent arguing to include it on the page and to include it here, you could easily slap on archive top|Yes and archive bottom and go on your way. Why are you wasting more arguing for other people to do that than doing it yourself? Be bold! -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:06, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
- The four discussions you mentioned all should be closed:
- Support in principle. Listing all expired RFCs en masse distracts limited volunteer attention from the ones that truly need that attention. IMO it's also disrespectful to the participants: it sends the signal that participants are either too dumb or too biased to figure out even the simplest consensus on their own. It has also resulted in some unfortunate situations, such as someone writing a closing statement without noticing that everyone in the dispute has resolved it and moved on.
However, I don't think a complete ban is necessary. I think it would be better to say that if you are listing more than one or two discussions (per week? per month?), then you need to either be a bona fide participant, or have asked the participants if they would like you to list it (and have received a positive response). As an alternative, it would probably be easy to have the RFC bot replace the {{rfc}} template with one that provides instructions on how to list a discussion for closing, rather that just blanking it. Then we could eliminate indiscriminate mass-listing but still get requests for closing statements when they are actually wanted. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:00, 19 June 2016 (UTC)- On a related point, replacing {{rfc}} with a new "{{rfc-has-ended}}" template would also make it much easier to find past RFCs, which is sometimes challenging. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:44, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support. I've never been able to keep up with the load, and I think while the idea that closing RfCs can help provide future guidance, in practice, I do not think this happens frequently enough for it to be worthwhile to list many RfCs here. I also agree with WhatamIdoing that most of the time, editors do not need a closer to figure things out themselves. I JethroBT drop me a line 21:30, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Oppose
- Oppose Ricky81682 and I both believe that an uninvolved editor should close each RfC. Ricky81682 wrote:
We differ on where requests for RfC closures should be listed. What is wrong with listing them at WP:ANRFC? WP:ANRFC was created to request closures for RfCs. This proposal is unhelpful because it would prevent an uninvolved editor like me from adding RfCs that need to be closed to the list. Oftentimes, if I don't list an RfC at WP:ANRFC, no one else will list it and it won't be closed.I still think we should have a page that does list all the unclosed RFCs. While they don't need an admin closure, I do think there's a fair concern that someone should close them and since it can't be the people involved in the discussion, they are kind of left in a loop if it's a pretty obscure talk page. From there, we can leave it as another backlog or whatever people want it called here (CSD and TFD are listed even though non-admins can close those as well) with like real complicated past-120 days or something ones separately identified when it gets really bad.
RfC closures are important. As RGloucester (talk · contribs) wrote:
And:RMs lingering in the backlog without closure are a problem, but at least no one says that RMs do not need closure. RfCs are a community dispute resolution process. If no uninvolved administrator (or other closer) provides a closure, it completely renders the process useless, and becomes merely another forum for involved parties to duke it out without end. RfCs need closure to function, otherwise they do not serve as a dispute resolution venue, merely as a different kind of talk page discussion that will go nowhere.
I have heard the concern of BU Rob13 (talk · contribs) regarding "consensus is clear" RfCs and have been closing the clear ones myself (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11). The remaining RfCs I list typically do not have an obvious consensus or are contentious.Unclosed RfCs are often a recipe for disaster, and nothing more. Often times, an RfC about a controversial topic will go on, everyone will have said their bit, but it will languish without closure forever. Then, the dispute comes back as there has never been any resolution, which is what a formal closure provides. RfCs should not be left unclosed unless they really are approaching unanimity. Unclosed RfCs are the basis of the continuance of many needless disputes.
- If the close is so important then someone there can make the listing here. If not, if the people actually arguing about it don't care to report it here, why are you? Again, RFC closures don't require an admin (unlike most everything else) and unless you literally believe that posting the tag "RFC" on a header means it requires someone to use template:archive top and template:archive bottom, there is an agreement that there exists some RFCs that do not require a close. Rather than it be some arbitrary criteria of which ones do and which don't, I say we just defer to the people debating the issue and whether they have resolved it. If they have, a close is a waste of time. If they haven't, they can surely tell someone they haven't. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:05, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
- Robert McClenon (talk · contribs), one of RfC's dedicated and hard-working closers, explained why formal closure of even seemingly "consensus is clear discussions" is helpful at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive268#Benefits of Formal Closure:
I therefore have closed or listed "consensus is clear discussions" on WP:ANRFC because closure is necessary to enforce consensus.I have closed several RFCs where I thought that consensus was clear, but that required follow-up for either of two reasons. Either one of the posters ignored the consensus, in spite of the formal closure stating the consensus, or one of the posters objected to the close and requested that I re-open the RFC to allow them to insert a statement. When there was move-warring against consensus or edit-warring against consensus, formal closure put the enforcing administrator on firmer ground in enforcing consensus. Formal closure establishes what the consensus is, unless reviewed. Otherwise the resulting WP:ANI thread would itself have had to establish consensus before warning or blocking, causing drama on a drama board. In cases where I have been asked to re-open a closure, I have instead asked for closure review. Without closure and closure review, the most likely result would have been edit-warring.
I think that listing 30-day-old RFCs for closure is useful. Maybe the policy should be changed so as to encourage formal closure in seemingly non-contentious cases. (A case is only non-contentious if no one comes out of the woodwork to start contending.) Maybe there should be more encouragement for experienced non-administrators to close open RFCs rather than to treat them as not needing closure.
I oppose this proposal because it does not matter who requests the closure. We should not defer to people discussing the issue because we do not do this for AfDs and Requested moves. That an editor took the time to create a formal RfC discussion seeking input and resolution from the community is enough to demonstrate that formal closure is necessary. All AfDs and Requested moves are closed without an involved editor's being required to request closure. So should RfCs.
Cunard (talk) 04:24, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
- Still, you haven't provided any reason why third-parties should care so much about closures. And you do realize that those are just personal opinions, right? Making them into giant blockquotes to take up half the page doesn't make your point any stronger and it sure doesn't convince me of anything. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:57, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
- Robert McClenon (talk · contribs), one of RfC's dedicated and hard-working closers, explained why formal closure of even seemingly "consensus is clear discussions" is helpful at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive268#Benefits of Formal Closure:
- If the close is so important then someone there can make the listing here. If not, if the people actually arguing about it don't care to report it here, why are you? Again, RFC closures don't require an admin (unlike most everything else) and unless you literally believe that posting the tag "RFC" on a header means it requires someone to use template:archive top and template:archive bottom, there is an agreement that there exists some RFCs that do not require a close. Rather than it be some arbitrary criteria of which ones do and which don't, I say we just defer to the people debating the issue and whether they have resolved it. If they have, a close is a waste of time. If they haven't, they can surely tell someone they haven't. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:05, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
- Strong Oppose - Useless, as one could simply participate in a discussion in a pointless way if they desired to list it here. No good reason has been given here for disallowing uninvolved users from posting reasonable requests. "33 discussions were listed at ANRFC by a single editor" a reference made above to Cunard whose work at this noticeboard I've found extremely productive and helpful in my experience.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 03:59, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
- Strong Oppose Any editor who sees a RFC that has been open long enough and would benefit from a formal close should be able to list it. any other outcome is rules creep, and seems decidedly un-wikipedian to me.Tazerdadog (talk) 04:46, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose - proposal is based on politician's fallacy. The problem (assuming it really is one) that the new rule is supposed to solve is a large input of RfCs at ANRFC that do not need closing. The rule would not solve the problem (see the evasion tactics proposed above), but it would prevent an editor from usefully listing RfC that do need closing. TigraanClick here to contact me 09:20, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose blanket rule for two reasons: the impracticality of such a rule as discussed above; and the benefit of flexibility on such matters. But I do want to trout-slap User:Cunard for adding a large number of discussions to this backlog in one go, some of which don't really need a formal / third-party closure. Deryck C. 16:52, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose. Looks like more bureaucracy for no benefit; if someone thinks a discussion needs a close, it doesn't matter if they participated or not. Maybe they need the close so they can build on the consensus or conclusions from the discussion. If you think a discussion is not worth closing you can simply close it with "no consensus" and clear it out of the backlog. BrightRoundCircle (talk) 04:40, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose. Cunard has been more receptive to being discriminate in his listings recently, and I do appreciate that. Given that the majority of the problem seems to have passed, I now oppose a blanket rule. I've always considered a blanket rule to be a second choice to individuals being far more discriminate in their closings. @Cunard: As for a separate section at ANRFC for participant listings vs. non-participant listings, I would oppose that because I think it encourages editors to list as non-participants or encourages an "all RfCs must be closed" mentality. I would support creating a separate page entirely at WP:Requests for comment pending closure for discussions that aren't urgent or difficult to close. I wouldn't oppose linking to this from ANRFC under the backlogs section. ANRFC, as I see it, is meant as a place to get quick administrator (or experienced closer) attention on discussions that really need rapid closure. ~ RobTalk 18:33, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
- The claim that Cunard is less indiscriminate now is something we could objectively verify. A year or two ago, when people first started complaining about this, he was mass-listing about 90% of RFCs (by his estimate, if memory serves). How much has it declined? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:46, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
- @WhatamIdoing: I can't verify the percentage, but I'm not talking about now vs. two years ago. I'm talking about this most recent listing vs. a month ago. The number of listings went down from roughly three dozen to more like a single dozen, all of which has at least some aspect that didn't seem 100% straightforward. I was the person who originally brought up this issue at AN, and I'm a strong opponent of the idea that we should close all RfCs, but Cunard is a good-faith effort. His listings are a net positive if and only if he continues to list them with some discrimination rather than blanket listing them all. Can I be sure that he isn't just temporarily adjusting due to this discussion? No, but I assume good faith and recognize that this can just wind up at a noticeboard as a pure behavioral issue if he were to go back to blanket listing immediately after this discussion concluded. I value Cunard's contributions as a whole and doubt things will get that far. ~ RobTalk 00:45, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
- The claim that Cunard is less indiscriminate now is something we could objectively verify. A year or two ago, when people first started complaining about this, he was mass-listing about 90% of RFCs (by his estimate, if memory serves). How much has it declined? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:46, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
Discussion
We can discuss changes to the RFC template or the bot so that people know after we figure out if this rule should exist. There's obviously ways to screw with this by making meaningless comments to RFC to post it here but at this point, you're approaching WP:POINT and WP:DE territory for something that is getting really, really lame. Most likely, assuming the bot can figure this out, it can be that, after removal of the notice, the bot can notify the original commenter on their talk page (probably just hide that into the markup when it's adding it, something to take out when it's being removed). Personally, I prefer that we have a full backlog within Wikipedia:Requests for comment (like RM does) and keep this section for the severe or emergency RFCs (things involving BLPs, the front page or things that are over 120 days or something) and I'd support this restriction here and a separate "old RFCs" page there without it but that's just me. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:20, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
- I am fine with WP:ANRFC having a section for "an emergency backlog" of RfCs involving BLPs, the front page, etc. and a section for other RfCs. I would list nearly all of my closure requests in the non-emergency unclosed RfC section. Would you support that?
Cunard (talk) 05:11, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
- No I don't think both are necessary here. I'd still support a requirement that a participant from the RFC report it for this one and suggest another away from the Admin noticeboards. RFCs aren't necessarily part of the noticeboard and should be separated. Didn't you oppose separating these before? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:01, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
- It's worth considering how this spamming of requests for closure affects how many people participate here. I was working through the backlog quite a bit until I realized that the majority of the backlog wasn't really a backlog, persay. At that point, I decided to help elsewhere. The spam increases the amount of work that other editors must eventually do above what's desirable (unless we convince closers to skip over those that don't need closes), but it's also reducing the amount of volunteer hours that are being spent at ANRFC. If ANRFC returns to a noticeboard to list discussions that the average editor would have difficult assessing, I'll happily work to clear the backlog, but I'm not interested in wasting hours of my time rubber-stamping discussions where the outcome is obvious. ~ RobTalk 20:27, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
- I looked at the current revision of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old. There is a six-day backlog of 81 unclosed discussions out of 440 total discussions (75 + 59 + 78 + 103 + 59 + 66 = 440).
Wikipedia:Requested moves currently has 32 unclosed discussions in its backlog.
This week, I added 31 unclosed RfCs from the past two weeks and closed six myself.
There are many more backlogged AfDs and Requested moves than RfCs. I do not see any editors arguing that only a subset of AfDs and Requested moves should be closed. I do not see any editors arguing that it is a waste of time to read through and close clear consensus AfDs and Requested moves. Why should all AfDs and Requested moves be closed but not RfCs?
I understood your concern that you didn't want to close "consensus is clear" RfCs. I closed them myself: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11. The remaining discussions are all contentious or unclear consensus RfCs as I explained above when you disputed four discussions I had listed.
Cunard (talk) 04:24, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
- Well in the alternative, I suggest we do have to reconsider the topic ban proposal. The amount of time and energy spent arguing for a right to making postings here screaming for other people to volunteer for something is quite amazing. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:00, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
- Rob, thank you for explaining how this "spamming" has discouraged you personally from closing RFCs. I think that's a valuable point of information. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:13, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- I looked at the current revision of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old. There is a six-day backlog of 81 unclosed discussions out of 440 total discussions (75 + 59 + 78 + 103 + 59 + 66 = 440).
- @Ricky81682: Would you object at all to me adding an official RfC banner? We need outside opinions. ~ RobTalk 18:05, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
- No, that's fine. I was hoping for an informal discussion but it seems like we need outside opinions here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:33, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
- Though very few support opinions have been given so far, they seem to be based on rationale of disliking the actions of an individual. The actions of an individual are not a reason to blanket disallow everyone from doing something that is not in itself inappropriate. Take the issue with the individual to the appropriate venue if desired and let the community decide whether or not they're acting appropriately.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 05:03, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
- This is a chicken-and-egg problem. If you say "deal with the one editor's behavior (how?), but don't change the rules", then the the discussion about the editor's behavior will end with "he's not breaking any rules; ergo, there's no behavior problem". And if you say "change the rules, and don't make this about one editor", then the response is "It's only one editor, so you don't need to change the rules. Deal with the one editor's behavior".
I think it makes more sense to have a discussion about the rules: Is it desirable for any editor to list nearly every expired RFC on this page? If not, then we should actually say that somewhere, and I have no doubt that this editor would stop doing it. And if it is desirable, then people need to stop complaining about this editor doing that (and maybe even find a bot to do this, because the listing process could be fully automated). WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:09, 19 June 2016 (UTC)- I agree with your point about this potentially being a bot task if nearly every RFC should be listed on this page. I guess my point boils down to "being a participant" is a bad criteria for being able to list a discussion at this noticeboard. If a user comes across an expired RfC that clearly needs a close, it is detrimental to restrict them from listing it here (the quicker consensus is assessed, the quicker the community can stop arguing and implement it), if it hasn't been already. I think the 3 points listed at WP:AN/RFC are good enough guidelines: "If consensus is unclear, then post a neutral request here for assistance." If consensus is clear, don't list it here. If a user is violating that, take them to WP:AN/I.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 05:09, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- Are you aware that we've already had those discussions, about this single editor, several times now? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:00, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- Godsy (talk · contribs), thank you for your kind words above about how you found my work at this noticeboard "extremely productive and helpful in [your] experience". The discussions I listed at WP:ANRFC today all follow the guidelines you listed. I've closed "consensus is clear" RfCs and other RfCs that I felt comfortable closing: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12. Cunard (talk) 22:54, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- These latest listings were significantly better, but I still don't understand why the participants, who in all of these cases seemed to care quite a bit about the outcome, can't list it themselves? What's gained by listing discussions within a couple days of them going past 30 days instead of letting the participants do so themselves? ~ RobTalk 23:59, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- BU Rob13 (talk · contribs), if I do not list the RfCs at WP:ANRFC, they usually do not get listed and are not closed. Many times the participants don't list the discussions here because they are unaware of the noticeboard or do not remember to list the RfC. That does not mean the issue goes away.
Why are RfC closes important? An example: Talk:Mariah Carey/Archive 9#Request for Comment: Birth Year (ANRFC close request). The close was referenced 16 months later to enforce the consensus. The consensus was already implemented. Mariah Carey's two possible birth years were added to the article. In January 2015 (16 months later), a new editor disputed the consensus version, saying only one year should be listed. Another editor responded with a link to the RfC. Had the RfC not been closed by an uninvolved editor, it would have been far more difficult to ensure the consensus is respected. "Read an uninvolved editor's summary of the RfC" is more likely to be heeded than "read this long, unclosed talk page discussion". In June 2016, nearly three years after the RfC close, an editor referred users to the discussion because there continued to be debate about the same issue.
I noticed that you've worked on closing CfDs. CfDs are closed even when no participant request closure. Why should not that same standard be applied to RfCs? A CfD close request is implicit when an editor opens a CfD. Why isn't an RfC close request implicit when an editor opens an RfC?
These latest listings were significantly better – I closed 12 RfCs today and listed the rest at WP:ANRFC. I hope this addresses your concerns. This proposal will effectively ban me from WP:ANRFC. You strongly opposed a ban in the past. I hope you will reconsider your decision to support this proposal.
- An RfC I closed today resulted in the removal of a section called "Conflict with Marine Corps Times". If the discussion was not closed, negative information that RfC participants said should be removed per WP:BLP likely would have continued to remain in the article. A close was necessary to enact the consensus regardless of whether participants requested closure. Cunard (talk) 03:35, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
- Because CfDs are followed with action. The close of a CfD is a summary of the action the closer is taking based on the discussion. I wouldn't object to you prodding a discussion and pinging participants to see if they want to request closure (i.e. alerting them that 30 days has passed). Would that be a suitable compromise here? You let participants know that they can list the discussion at ANRFC and they decide whether to action on that knowledge. This seems to address both your concerns and the concerns of editors here. ~ RobTalk 03:38, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
- RfC closes can also be followed with action like the example I mentioned above. Another example is this removal of the "Accolades" section from Ted Cruz by Tazerdadog (talk · contribs) as a result of this RfC.
I don't understand why a closer taking action means a discussion is more worthy of closure. The reason for a CfD close is to record the consensus and enforce the result. This is the same for an RfC close: record the consensus and enforce the result.
Pinging participants to ask them to request closure for a discussion I believe should be closed is a "repetitive and mundane tas[k]" that might be fit for a bot, not for me. My opinion as uninvolved editor that a discussion is worthy of being closed should not matter less than an RfC participant's.
BU Rob13 (talk · contribs), would you accept this compromise: We create two RfC sections on WP:ANRFC. One is called "Requests for comments (requests for closures by participants)" and the second is called "Requests for comments (requests for closures by non-participants)". Closers like you who want to close only involved editors' requests will work on closing discussions in the first section while other editors who are fine with non-participants' requests will also review the second section.
Cunard (talk) 04:17, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
- I honestly do not understand this. Why would a non-participant even care? It's not like there's a 30-day limit on commenting. If it's not closed, just comment. You either (a) have an opinion and want a close or (b) don't have an opinion. How do you have an opinion that there should be a resolution but also don't have an opinion on how it should be resolved enough to even say it? Do people just wander around every single edit dispute and say "hi I think you two should go try WP:3O, I'm not actually going to offer myself as a third-party even though that would a lot easier but I'm just saying go bug someone else"? Do we really have a problem of unclosed RFCs with none of the participants either edit warring further or asking for a close that requires a close so that other people who visit the talk page but similarly somehow don't have an opinion can also opine that while they don't have an opinion, they want a fourth-party to make an opinion about the two parties currently there? It's just plain weird to me. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:47, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
- Cunard, CFDs need "closing" because non-admins cannot implement the usual consensus outcomes. Therefore, at CFD, you need someone to close and enact the community's consensus, or (in the 'keep without changes' outcome) to tell people that the admin corps declines to push any buttons for them. (Formally marking "keep" decisions as closed saves other admins' a lot of time, because they can see which need attention from an admin and which don't.)
There is no equivalent need at an article RFC. If you see which way an RFC is headed, you can implement the consensus yourself, even before the bot removes the tag. And – rather unlike XFD – if you come up with an even better idea tomorrow, then you're welcome to improve the article again. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:53, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
- RfC closes can also be followed with action like the example I mentioned above. Another example is this removal of the "Accolades" section from Ted Cruz by Tazerdadog (talk · contribs) as a result of this RfC.
- Because CfDs are followed with action. The close of a CfD is a summary of the action the closer is taking based on the discussion. I wouldn't object to you prodding a discussion and pinging participants to see if they want to request closure (i.e. alerting them that 30 days has passed). Would that be a suitable compromise here? You let participants know that they can list the discussion at ANRFC and they decide whether to action on that knowledge. This seems to address both your concerns and the concerns of editors here. ~ RobTalk 03:38, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
- BU Rob13 (talk · contribs), if I do not list the RfCs at WP:ANRFC, they usually do not get listed and are not closed. Many times the participants don't list the discussions here because they are unaware of the noticeboard or do not remember to list the RfC. That does not mean the issue goes away.
- These latest listings were significantly better, but I still don't understand why the participants, who in all of these cases seemed to care quite a bit about the outcome, can't list it themselves? What's gained by listing discussions within a couple days of them going past 30 days instead of letting the participants do so themselves? ~ RobTalk 23:59, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- I agree with your point about this potentially being a bot task if nearly every RFC should be listed on this page. I guess my point boils down to "being a participant" is a bad criteria for being able to list a discussion at this noticeboard. If a user comes across an expired RfC that clearly needs a close, it is detrimental to restrict them from listing it here (the quicker consensus is assessed, the quicker the community can stop arguing and implement it), if it hasn't been already. I think the 3 points listed at WP:AN/RFC are good enough guidelines: "If consensus is unclear, then post a neutral request here for assistance." If consensus is clear, don't list it here. If a user is violating that, take them to WP:AN/I.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 05:09, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- This is a chicken-and-egg problem. If you say "deal with the one editor's behavior (how?), but don't change the rules", then the the discussion about the editor's behavior will end with "he's not breaking any rules; ergo, there's no behavior problem". And if you say "change the rules, and don't make this about one editor", then the response is "It's only one editor, so you don't need to change the rules. Deal with the one editor's behavior".
- A previous RFC at Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure/Archive 1#RfC about listing discussions concluded that most RFCs do not need to be listed here. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:20, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- Interestingly enough, the fact that that RfC has a formal closure makes it so much easier to assess and refer to now. (I agree we do not always need a formal close, but it helps when future reference is needed). Back to the topic, I'd go further and say that backlog listings in general should be discouraged, it creates a backlog of backlog listings, and extra work to (de)list from the backlog list. What we need is technical measures to publicise ALL RfCs needing closure. Kind of like wp:PRODs. Maybe some bot can signal here RfCs with, for example, more than 30 days since the start and more than 7 (4? 3?) days without any comment? Also some social measures could help (more admins, clearer closing procedures, ..., but that is too much off-topic for this discussion) - Nabla (talk) 12:53, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- That presumes that all RFCs needs a formal closure. People aren't idiots, I think we can all guess when an RFC needs a formal closure. My proposal above would limit it to the people there just to limit it and get away from the people who absolutely believe that all RFCs requires an archive top and archive bottom template. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:41, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
- Interestingly enough, the fact that that RfC has a formal closure makes it so much easier to assess and refer to now. (I agree we do not always need a formal close, but it helps when future reference is needed). Back to the topic, I'd go further and say that backlog listings in general should be discouraged, it creates a backlog of backlog listings, and extra work to (de)list from the backlog list. What we need is technical measures to publicise ALL RfCs needing closure. Kind of like wp:PRODs. Maybe some bot can signal here RfCs with, for example, more than 30 days since the start and more than 7 (4? 3?) days without any comment? Also some social measures could help (more admins, clearer closing procedures, ..., but that is too much off-topic for this discussion) - Nabla (talk) 12:53, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Numbers
I spent a few minutes getting some numbers, in case they're interesting to anyone else:
- On 8 May, Cunard listed 53 RFCs for closure. (The previous mass-listing seems to have been on 18 April.) A quick scan through Legobot's contributions during that time shows that about 62 RFCs expired during those three weeks. That's a mass-listing rate of about 85%.
- On 23 May, Cunard listed 29 RFCs for closure. A quick scan through Legobot's contributions during that time shows that about 38 RFCs expired during those two weeks. That's a mass-listing rate of about 75%.
- On 6 June, Cunard listed 33 RFCs for closure. A quick scan through Legobot's contributions during that time shows that about 48 RFCs expired during those two weeks. That's a mass-listing rate of about 70%.
- On 19 June, Cunard listed 12 RFCs for closure. A quick scan through Legobot's contributions during that time shows that about 36 RFCs expired during those two weeks. That's a mass-listing rate of just 33% – in the first mass-listing since this RFC began.
I'm sure that there is more variability over time (both in the total number of RFCs and the percentage Cunard lists). I'm also sure that there were some RFCs that Cunard would have listed, except that a participant had already done so. Only Cunard could to tell us whether, during the month or two before this RFC started, he intentionally omitted any expired RFC or could give us examples of RFCs that he didn't list on the grounds that he didn't believe they should be listed here. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:37, 25 June 2016 (UTC)