This is an old revision of this page, as edited by AlbinoFerret (talk | contribs) at 00:55, 24 October 2015 (→Help with RfC). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 00:55, 24 October 2015 by AlbinoFerret (talk | contribs) (→Help with RfC)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)This my Talk Page. Leave a message and I will get back to you. If I left a message on your talk page , please respond to me there as I will be looking there for the response. AlbinoFerret 13:06, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 Archives |
Help with RfC
AlbinoFerret, I've noticed that you do a lot of NAC's and have some experience and uderstanding about such things (that I dont have). would you please take a look at this RfC and let me know your thoughts about how the RfC was formed and presented and what, if anything, can be done to put forth a valid and neutral RfC on the issue?
As I see it, the RfC was proposed with a suggested "right" answer and that kind of invalidates it off the bat? I do believe the issue being discussed is ripe for an RfC but it should be presented neutrally and without a proposal that advocates a particular outcome.
If my concerns are valid, what is the proper way for me to proceed to get it relisted in a neutral tone? Thank you. Minor4th 19:34, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for asking Minor4th I really like closing, its something I have found I am good at. That is a horribly laid out RFC, it will stifle participation and make the closers job harder. Your right its not neutral in the slightest. Here is a good format that I have used.
- The Problem. There are concerns about this and that thing. (short and sweet. More than two or three sentences is to much and leads to TLDR)
- Policies and guidelines that apply. WP:Example 1 WP:Example 2 WP:Example 3
- ====Should we do this thing 1====
- ====Should we do this thing 2====
- Add more sections if necessary depending on the options. Never add an Other" or "suggest a solution" section, it will go 50 different ways and end no consensus. The problem can be a simple question. I like to add a separate section called PAG to the RFC's I have started. This way it gives responders a clue on whats controlling. They may disagree and suggest other PAG, but it directs the discussions onto PAG which is what is best.
- ====Discussion====
- This is where those that want to make long posts can do it. Missed the last part, you may not be able to do anything. But you can point out the problems and suggest a better question or a discussion on a new RFC and how its laid out. Start a separate discussion if the proposer wont listen and another RFC. Odds are with the problems that one has, it will get little participation and if a good one is presented it will have more. The larger participation will give it more weight going forward. AlbinoFerret 20:35, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks. I will go over there and try to address it. If you have a minute, could you maybe link a couple of good RfC's for me so that I can start a new one if necessary, and do it properly? Thanks again. Minor4th 00:25, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- Sure here are a couple of good laid out ones. The only problem with this one is it gave to many options. This one wasnt bad but there is duplication in the questions. This ones question is a little long, and doesnt have sections but did a good job of laying out the issue without adding opinion in. AlbinoFerret 00:36, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks. I pointed out the problem with the way the RfC was formed over there and politely asked the initiating editor to re-word it, but she has responded that her RfC is completely neutral and she will not modify it. So I think I will start a second RfC and see if we can get some decent participation and discussion. Thanks for your help. Minor4th 00:52, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- Not a problem. Glad to help with RFC's any way I can. I am a true believer in the process. AlbinoFerret 00:55, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks. I pointed out the problem with the way the RfC was formed over there and politely asked the initiating editor to re-word it, but she has responded that her RfC is completely neutral and she will not modify it. So I think I will start a second RfC and see if we can get some decent participation and discussion. Thanks for your help. Minor4th 00:52, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- Sure here are a couple of good laid out ones. The only problem with this one is it gave to many options. This one wasnt bad but there is duplication in the questions. This ones question is a little long, and doesnt have sections but did a good job of laying out the issue without adding opinion in. AlbinoFerret 00:36, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks. I will go over there and try to address it. If you have a minute, could you maybe link a couple of good RfC's for me so that I can start a new one if necessary, and do it properly? Thanks again. Minor4th 00:25, 24 October 2015 (UTC)