Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Archive 6

message: Is it appropriate to request an RFC or PR for a non-live draft rewrite of an article? Sort of a "pre-emptive" review. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 17:40, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  RFC for a draft? 

message: Hi there, after weeks of discussions I believe we have reached a deadlock at template talk:languageicon. Input from outsiders would be much appreciated. Thanks. PizzaMargherita 06:57, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deadlock at [[template talk:languageicon]] 

message: Someone started this RfC, but it's not on the talk page for the article in dispute. Everything I read says it has to be on the talk page. If a separate page could be created, it should say so somewhere. Also, the section headings for that dedicated RfC page look like they come from a template. Is there a template for RfC pages? -Barry- 01:04, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I found the template. Turns out someone pointed me to it in the past for an unrelated reason. Why aren't people told about the template here? -Barry- 22:21, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC only for talk page? 

message: A dispute about removing a section or leaving it  could use outside eyes. 19:32, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Israel 

message: I would like an admin to take a look at the RfC filed against me. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Zer0faults I feel its an act of revenge as the person who filed it had recently been given a few day ban because of AN/I posts I made. Shortly after those posts they made the RfC and then were banned once an admin reviewed the AN/I. The certifying user is also someone accusing me of being a sockpuppet, something that been proven 2x before that I am not, both in RFCU. The other user is one I have had no interaction with before, but they have appeared also calling me a sockpuppet, even stating I managed to trick the RFCU when I showed it to them as proof I am not a sockpuppet. There is now even an anon user, Kornet IP that has been blocked before for this same issue posting. There only posts are always against me, there is also mention of it on AN/I. I would like the RfC closed as the person certifying is not actually related to the original dispute and nor is the other user who is calling me a sockpuppet. I was told a RfC was a means of working things out, however all of the user posting on mine are making personal attacks against me, ones that have been proven wrong. If it cannot be removed, I would like to know if I have to participate in it, as its turned very nasty with accusations of me being a sockpuppet, something I have proven wrong, and is being used as an intimidation tactic. The certifying user is even attempting to recruit people by telling them I am a sockpuppet of someone they had previous encouters with and then telling them to post on my RfC. The proof is all highlited in my "response" section. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 00:38, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Basis for RfC 

message: Hi, everybody
Since around May 10th, there is increase in anti-croatian meat-puppetry, so I decided to propose a WP:RFC for a few most stubborn and uncooperative users, for breaking the rules of wikipedia, most notably WP:POINT.
But, since there is so much of them (more that 30), I can't keep all that info in my head, so I came to idea to make my personal WP:RFC pages for all of them, so I could get a big picture of who is vandal and who is just an uninformed newbie.
Since some of them could take this as a personal attack, I was thinking about hiding this info somewhere deep in my personal subpages and not making any links to it from other pages.
Basically, I need any wiki software to make this little project of mine and I don't want to bother with opening the site and creating the private wiki. So, I feel that english wikipedia is not so much the right place this little project of mine, but the right tool.
Also, I was thinking of calling some of my pals here (who were frustrated with the same meat-puppets) to help me dig the information from wiki, but I'll propably had to do it by myself.
So, is it OK if I open those pages or it's ilegal for some reason?
--Ante Perkovic 14:36, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Private RFC pages? 

message: I'd like to add a fourth task to the RfC procedure, shown below in bold:
#. Do not put any issues on this page.
#. Link to the Talk page.
#. Sign entries with the date only. Use five tildes: 06:20, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a good idea. Possibly, it should be combined with No. 2, with something like: "Link to a section the Talk page that neutrally describes the dispute and the arguments for and against." See, the problem is that the whole page is disorganized. There may have been some sort uncorrected mutilation in the page history. —Centrx→talk • 05:04, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I also think there needs to be a stronger statement about adding only discussions where regular discussion has been rather exhausted. Looking through the lists, I find a few where there has been little to no discussion before the RfC, and then the same day or a couple days later the issue is resolved by the same editors who participated in the discussion in the first place, and an RfC could have been avoided altogether. The lists are cluttered. —Centrx→talk • 19:19, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There has been a lot of re-organizing since the original comment, so it might be good to check it out. —Centrx→talk • 02:54, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fourth task 

message: I think I'm on the wrong page, but I'd like to know where I can request a review of my own conduct. I believe I have followed the letter of the law, but I'm not sure if I could have done something better. Is this the place to explain what's going on and what I did, and ask for criticism? -- Steven Fisher 15:48, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  My own conduct 

message: I've read it several times, but the RfC page does not really seem to have any instructions as to the purpose of "endorsements."  Is there documentation on this somewhere, such that a link to the documentation could be added on the RfC page somewhere?  It would help clarify just what was going on, to people who are new to the process. --Elonka 18:12, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Documentation request 

message: Hi, I am the one that RFCed myself earlier. Now I request one for [] Ron7 who now has escalated our dispute on Orania to him accusing me of.... well let me just cut and paste his words: 
:When you say that you will be cheering when an entire ethnic group vanishes is truly reprehensible. Odd how you accuse your opponents of being terrorists (this is a new low for you) yet you think that you can issue terrorist threats against an entire ethnic group & get off scot free! The whole world is watching & the whole world can see you for the hateful bigot that you are. If you do not like a given ethnic group fine: but refrain from issuing terrorist threats against them sir.
(Bold empathsis RON'S). Now here is the thing. I know darn well that racial dispute topics usually get RFCs disproportionately towards the black contributor, unless the white contributor puts a sign on his face saying "I am a white racist" of course. It's just how it is on Wikipedia. But in this topic, Ron has continually misdirected my conversation by "responding" to things I am not discussing and then "correcting" statements I have not made. Now he accuses me of issuing a terrorist threat. Obviously he is hoping you will overreact and just ban me. But I would expect you guys to administer this in the SAME MANNER you would if I made that statement about HIM (or anyone else). --Zaphnathpaaneah 15:42, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You know, you aren't giving people a lot of reasons to jump right on helping you when you imply that many of them are prejudiced against black people, if not racists, and that, as a result, they won't try to be fair.  Assume good faith, and it's a lot easier to get people on your side. Sxeptomaniac 18:20, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Falsely accusing one of terrorist acts is grounds for what? 

message: What process do we follow when the subject of an RfC refuses to participate? Specifically User:Go for it! has been ignoring the RfC concerning his wikiquette, since April. The rest of us would like to move on, but are unsure how to officially demand his participation (?), or how to close the case properly without it. Thanks. -Quiddity 19:52, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The specific user in question appears to have abandoned his account. I'm still curious as to what the procedure would have been though? -Quiddity 18:29, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  RFC/UC refusal to respond? 

message: Hello, all. I am trying to file an RfC about a problem at the article about Mami Wata (a deity). The dispute is over whether one particular source is acceptable as a secondary source per Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Therefore, I am unsure whether to list it under Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Religion and philosophy or Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Policies (or both). This is my first RfC, so any help is appreciated. -- BrianSmithson 14:01, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Religion and philosophy is probably the best spot. SB Johnny 17:13, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, file the article in the topic area of what the article is about. The article is about about religion, or perhaps history. Policy RfCs are for current and proposed policies and guidelines. Also consider asking at Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources. The people there may be able to help, or your problem may indicate a deficiency in the policy that should be fixed. —Centrx→talk • 18:08, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where to file this RfC? 

message: Thanks to SB Johnny and Centrx for replying above. Bringing the issue up at Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources is a good idea. I also thought it might be a good idea to mention the RfC at Wikipedia:Africa-related regional notice board. However, I am hesitant to do this, as I am unsure if it is frowned upon to "advertise" an RfC in this way. I would say no more than "A Request for Comment has been filed at Talk:Mami Wata. Outside views are appreciated" and then sign anonymously. Is this okay per common RfC practice? — BrianSmithson 23:50, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is okay to ask for comments from WikiProjects, etc. but in this case it looks like the question is whether the book is a reliable source under Wikipedia policy, in which case the people at the notice board may have no special insight. —Centrx→talk • 05:11, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, they might theoretically be more familiar with the subject matter. Thanks for the help. -- BrianSmithson 15:09, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Advertising" RfCs

message: I know this isn't the place to bring this up but as no-one seems to be watching WP:RFC/ART could some editors please take a look at Talk:The Legend of Zelda series/landofthelegend.net as it has been 10 days and only one comment so far (from yesterday). — Ian Moody (talk) 17:16, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  landofthelegend.net 

message: The page really should be archived, as it is quite long, contains a lot of stale sections and there is confusion about date order. I'm going to remove everything that hasn't received discussion for more than a month. 
I also think we should use sections rather than horizontal lines (which is part of the reason the page is so ugly, despite not being as long as some discussion pages). Not only does it break the page up much better, we can use the sections to indicate the result of an RfC as is done on WP:AN/3RR. I'll try it on the remaining sections and see how it looks. --Sam Blanning(talk) 10:06, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: When archiving, dont bother commenting about it on a Talk page, unless we should start greating meta-talk pages, Talk:Talk:RfC. Horizontal lines sometimes happen because one person does not follow format, and then everyone after him in that section does not either. It is not standard practice. —Centrx→talk • 20:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Archiving and sections

message: :Moved from main page. Iolakana|T 20:41, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Just a thought

message: What category would an RfC for a biography of a living person fall under?  Dreadlocke 02:53, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As of now, the area they're involved, i.e. if they are an artist or a mathematician, add them to the section on arts and the section on science. They could also be added to the history section. If it is a major area with many disputes, another section could be created. —Centrx→talk • 07:00, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The subject of the article claims to have paranormal abilities, Natasha Demkina.  The dispute is between editors who seem to be mainstream skeptics that do not believe in the paranormal at all, and editors that think the Wikipedia article should tell more of her life story, including aspects that aren’t considered as accepted mainstream science.  The dispute is based on content and allowable sources.  There seem to be a number of disputes of this nature on Wikipedia, (skeptics vs believers?) but I'm not sure if it would be considered major or not.  I think this particular article may need more eyes than just those interested in science, considering that it's also a BLP.  Dreadlocke 16:00, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Media, art and literature, or perhaps History, are currently the best places for that. What I mean by major is having a new subpage specifically for RfCs living persons, where articles like this could go. —Centrx→talk • 04:38, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh right!  I think having an RfC subpage for BLP articles is a great idea!  There are at least three articles on BLPs that I think could use more attention; they're currently being edited primarily by critics and seem to have undue weight in that direction. Dreadlocke 16:32, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have asked for input at Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons#RfC subpage for BLPs. —Centrx→talk • 21:30, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent!  Thanks Centrx!! Dreadlocke 22:54, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

text: When do you think we might have an answer on creating a new subpage? Dreadlocke 16:08, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have been away for several days, but there is strong agreement for the idea and I will create it when I get around to it, or someone else can. The only question is whether it should be for all biographies or only for living persons. —Centrx→talk • 11:10, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Welcome back!  It might be worthwhile to start off with a subpage for all biographies.  If it gets clogged up, then maybe it could be split out.  Categories can still count since editors have the choice of putting a request under two places.  But then again, with the concern over accuracy and libel in BLP's, it might be wise to keep them separate.  Dreadlocke  ☥  01:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: BLP RfC

message: I don't get something. The policy says "Before requesting community comment, at least two editors must have contacted the user on their talk page, or the talk pages involved in the dispute, and tried but failed to resolve the problem." What if a single editor has a particular problem with someone? Where is he supposed to find a second editor who wants to try to resolve a dispute he's not involved in? Margana 13:52, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Read through the dispute resolution process, it outlines several ways to engage other editors, including getting a third opinion and finding a member advocate. Dreadlocke 17:51, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Two editors?

message: I'm curious.  I won't name the user I'm thinking of, but I'm wondering if it could be objectively demonstrated that a user has exerted an unusually high degree of fixation on one article, would that be something to consider as unbeneficial conduct in the Wikipedia?  In this case, the article is under dispute and mediation is being sought, but also in this case, one of the disputants seems to be mostly hanging onto this one article while making few other contributions, while the other disputants continue with a wide variety of contributions.  Has there been any dealings in the past with fixated users and how should they be dealt with?  By the way, I ask anonymously as I don't want to be traced back to the dispute in question. 4.224.120.113 19:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As in, one user just reverting everyone else's edits, or chanting "my way or the highway" as a mantra? WP:OWN? SB_Johnny | talk 22:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Article fixation by a user

message: The RFC page used to be really simple, but apparently I haven't been here in quite a while. I tried to make the contents more obvious, but that turned out ugly in "show preview." Can anyone help make the table of contents more prominent at least? Maurreen 06:58, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I moved the policylist right, which makes the TOC more prominent. The old revision before I re-organized it is at . I think this new version is a vast improvement. Where before the different kinds of RFC and RFC response were confused together, now it has clear avenues in specific sections for each. While the page is nominally slightly longer, it means that someone coming here to post or respond to an RFC has one specific section to read, which makes it much shorter for using it, where before they mostly had to read the whole page to get an accurate understanding (and even then it wasn't complete, if they read the whole thing anyway). —Centrx→talk • 17:42, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. Maurreen 17:49, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Layout

message: Please see Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Closure of RfCs.  Guy 10:11, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal re user RFCs 

message: This article is an absolute mess.  It provides no coherent well sourced definition of a Black person and just rambles on and on about various people who were labled Black in different times, places, and languages, and tries to merge them all together as a coherent ethnic group. It would be like trying to merge Native Americans and people from India into a coherent article called Indian people. It makes no sense. We had requested mediation and the mediator said we should use the census as our source. Here's what the U.S. census says:
A Black is “ a person having origins in any of the Black racial groups of Africa. It includes people who indicate their race as "Black, African Am., or Negro,"or provide written entries such as African American, Afro American, Kenyan, Nigerian, or Haitian.”  
Black Africa is a synonym of sub-Saharan Africa and all of the non-African groups mentioned (i.e. African-Americans, Haitains) are descendents of the recent African diasporas.  And yet we still have editors insisting that South Asians be given equal weight in the article and be considered Black.  These people provide no cited definitions or census classifications to defend their assertions, instead they cherry pick from different sources in different countries for examples of South Asians being labeled Black, often in different languages.  But by the same logic, I could argue that the Black Irish are Black.  The point is the people editing that article need to be forced to adheare to a coherent sourced authoritative definition of a Black person, or the entire article should just be deleted as POV and unencyclopedic.
Dictionary.com[],  the free dictionary online[].,  the U.S. census[],  and the British census[] all emphasize the idea that Blacks are of African origin-in fact it is against the law for a dark-skinned person of South Asian or Australian origin to claim to be black in the census.  An article by the BBC makes a clear distinction between Blacks and the dark skinned people of South Asian ancestry[].  This article about race in biomedicines says “The entities we call ‘racial groups’ essentially represent individuals united by a common descent — a huge extended family, as evolutionary biologists like to say. Blacks, for example, are a racial group defined by their possessing some degree of recent African ancestry (recent because, after all, everyone of us is out of Africa, the origin of Homo sapiens)."[].  I really need help getting the editors of that article to stick to a coherent definition, instead of just pushing their own POV. Editingoprah 06:16, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Desperate help needed at the [[Black people]] article! Please get involved!!

message: User:Ryulong created an RfC against User:Masterhatch and invited me to view it. I have had the same issues with Masterhatch as Ryulong has. The RfC rules seem to say:
:The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 03:32, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC rules question 

message: There are disputes listed under the RfC/politics page that are over a month old.  I posted one less than a week ago so perhaps I'm being impatient, but does anyone actually bother to look at this page or visit articles that have been RfCd?  Is there an easier way to get additional voices to comment on a particular article?--csloat 20:33, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Listings usually don't end up getting removed even if an issue is resolved, so the length of the list or the age of the entries does not mean that no one is looking at it or that problems aren't being resolved. Many people do look at these articles and visit the pages. One reason why people would be uninterested in looking at an issue is if the issue is not simply and clearly described with a link to a section that is directly linked from the RfC (). Few will want to respond if they get the feeling they will have to read the whole discussion on the talk page and still might not know what the problem is. —Centrx→talk • 06:34, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  does anyone read RfC/politics?? 

message: An editor unhappy with an AFD on an article he created has opened an RFC in the middle of an AFD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Opposition to Iran-Iraq War, arguing that the article was being targeted by "Wikipedians of Iranian ancestry". (IMO the article itself is unsalvageable, but the author's perception is clearly different.) A few of the commentators in the AFD seem to have a number of edits on middle-eastern topics, though I have no idea of their ancestry; I have no ancestry in that part of the world. 
I have a concern about what will happen to the AFD process if RFC's are routinely opened in the middle of it. Is there a policy on this? Should RFC's be used to mediate an AFD, or should AFD be considered a separate process which shouldn't be interrupted by another process? I'm posting the same question at AFD talk. Fan-1967 02:56, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it's a major problem if someone wants to summon comments in a neutral way like RfC (rather than, e.g., spamming like-minded users on their talk pages), unless it were to become widespread where RfC is not used for its purpose. An RfC will not supersede the AfD. —Centrx→talk • 06:40, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  RFC in the middle of an AFD? 

message: The rules state:
:After all parties agree the issue has been resolved
but who are the all parties concerned?  If someone -- one of the editors originally involved in the dispute -- does not participate in the RFC, can this editor claim that he did not agree and ignore the RFC consensus?  Goldfritha 15:31, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is more a housekeeping matter, that items should not be stricken from the list of RfCs if people do not agree that the issue is resolved; they are removed after a few weeks regardless. If someone is ignoring consensus on an article, that may require administrator intervention or escalation of the dispute. —Centrx→talk • 23:39, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What article is it? —Centrx→talk • 23:42, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know if it will be a problem, but I put a Request for Comment on Wizard (fantasy) on Monday, and User:Jc37, the other editor, has made no comments in it, although making other edits on the article.  Because this editor has ignored things said in the discussion page until I made edits based on them, and then reverted the edits and only then responded in discussion -- I thought I would like to know what is the Right Thing to Do before I need to know.  Goldfritha 00:38, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To be more precise, I wanted to know whether -- granting that a consensus is reached -- I could edit accordingly.  Goldfritha 02:10, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Thank you.  We can hope it will work.  Goldfritha 04:07, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: All parties

message: Is it proper for another editor to add a RFC to a different list?  I had made a RFC in Nun and listed it on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Religion and philosophy, and the other editor listed it, again, on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Society, law, and sex.  Goldfritha 04:27, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it's fine for another user to list it in another section; in general such cross-posting should be kept to a minimum though. —Centrx→talk • 22:16, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Categories

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

message: I have been directed to the subpage Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct#Use of administrator privileges by several administrators who question that I am following the correct procedure to appeal a 6-hours block in ANI (as per WP:BLOCK). I am very confused because the main page of RfC does not make any mention that a RfC could/should be made on administrators' behaviour and because other policy pages clearly suggest otherwise. 
If the correct way to conduct an appeal is via RfC, what I doubt, why this is not explicit anywhere in the main relevant policy pages, significatively in this one? 
If it is not, why some administrators try to defer the right procedure towards RfC? --Sugaar 17:46, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're obviously unblocked -- there's no further action anyone can take.  If you are in a dispute with an administrator over whether or not they should have blocked in the first place, then RfC is the right place.  Jkelly 17:55, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requests for comment/User conduct#Use of administrator privileges 

message: As per: 
:In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 21:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If it's a user conduct RFC, there's a section on the User conduct page that details how to go about closing the RFC. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs) 20:08, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: How does an editor go about closing a RfC?

message: This article seems to be unclear as to whether you are to respond to requests for comment on an article's talk page, or somewhere else?  02:00, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Amended, . —Centrx→talk • 23:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  How do you respond to an RFC? 

message: When listing an article content RFC, you're supposed to put it in an appropriate topic area.  Now most articles do fit in one of those topic areas, but what does one do with an article that doesn't quite fit in any of them?  In other words, why not have a miscellaneous section? ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs) 20:10, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What is the topic? —Centrx→talk • 23:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Content RFC topic area organization 

message: Please pardon me if I'm treading familiar ground here, but it seems to me that many/most RfCs attract few participants, and generally just waste time. And yet, people are always saying, "When having a content dispute, try RfC first." I don't feel like the system is working very well, though, mainly due to lack of participation. Do people know of examples where an RfC really helped? Other thoughts? Thanks. IronDuke 23:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it varies.  I've followed 2 user conduct RFCs, and one had lots of participation, and the other didn't have any.  As for article RFCs, I think it depends, at least in part, on the subject area and the complexity of the dispute.  Simple disputes get more participation, complicated ones get less.  Popular subjects get more, ones with little interest get less.  Also, if people follow the instructions and put the RFC in a new section and provide a simple, rational summary of the the dispute so people don't have to wade through 5 pages of repetative, emotional, attack-filled argument to even figure out what the dispute is about, there tends to be more participation.  I filed a simple little article RFC towards the end of the day yesterday and so far I've gotten 2 responses on it.  IMO, the 2 responses have been quite helpful.  Hopefully we'll get more responses and the article will end up improving more as a result then it would if we'd settled it between ourselves.  On the other hand, I've seen other article RFCs sit for a month with no response at all until, finally, in the end, the parties resolved it between themselves. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs) 15:20, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I looked at several recent ones in the History and Biography sections and all had received some comment, and will probably receive more given that they have only been open for two days. There were a few which I did not bother to closely check because the link sent me to the top of a long undifferentiated talk page—which is exactly the reason why someone would not want to comment. An RfC that asks responders to search through a page to try to even find the dispute section, or which asks responders to read pages upon pages of stale comments when a brief summary with the different viewpoints would be a sufficient starting point, would be less likely to receive a response. Is there a specific subject area that you think is not being covered properly or a specific aspect that you think is flawed? —Centrx→talk • 23:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On this subject could someone please come and comment on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/BooyakaDell, the user involved are chilled down a bit at the moment - but that could quickly deteriorate and we would be back to some very uncivil behaviour and edit warring. Thanks in advance Lethaniol 00:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for comment on requests for comment

message: Is it proper to post an outside view before a RfC has been certified? -Amarkov blahedits 15:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know if it is or not, but if I had something to say I'd go ahead and say it. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs) 15:58, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question regarding process 

message: The sections listed don't seem to include an appropriate one. 67.117.130.181 17:16, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Economy and trade maybe?  This is why I think there should be a miscellaneous section. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs) 17:49, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  where to put an an rfc about an article about a company? 

message: Hi, I would like to start an RfC for Cplot vs MONGO. But I noticed there is already a closed RfC on MONGO. Does anyone know what we do in this case. Can we Archive the old one and put a link like what many user do on their talk page and then continue with the new one? If so, can you explain how we do this, I've never really ever archived my user's talk page. --CyclePat 06:08, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just follow the directions on the Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct page and title it MONGO 3, since there already was a 1 and number 2 was deleted.--MONGO 13:24, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What do you do if there has already been an RfC for a user?