User:Bluethricecreamman/Bad RFCs
 | This is an essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article or a Wikipedia policy, as it has not been reviewed by the community. |
 | This page in a nutshell: Sometimes an RFC is considered "Bad" if WP:RFCBEFORE did not take place, or was inadequate. Some may argue that such an RFC should be closed early, and either restarted with new options or abandoned altogether . |
Occasionally, an editor will start a request for comments (RFC) that may supposedly not meet WP:RFCBEFORE or WP:RFCNEUTRAL. Even if others argue it is a BADRFC (also commonly written as, BadRfC or Bad RFC), there is currently no policy that automatically invalidates such an RFC. An RFC may continue even if it doesn't follow best practices. However, if there is consensus for determining that the RFC should be WP:SNOW closed, then this can also result in the RFC ending rather quickly.
Editors can always !vote for and comment in any constructive capacity, including supporting options not listed. This could include an option commonly referred to as "BADRFC". Choosing "BADRFC" is still a !vote, and one typically arguing for a new RFC, or at least for the present RFC !voted on to come to an immediate close (with or without a new RFC to follow).
One view of a BADRFC !vote is that a specific RFC is not the appropriate or best tool for dispute resolution at the moment.
A closer can't end an RFC as a "BADRFC", because there's no such thing in any policy or process. However, WP:RFCEND gives several options for ending an RFC, and one of them is when the participants in the discussion (←not the closer) form a consensus to end an RFC. This is still technically a type of closure, and is subject to the same policy, including appeals. You should generally not close an RFC or discussion you are involved in, even if it is a "BADRFC".
It has been suggested that voting "BADRFC" is more a !vote against using the RFC process to generate consensus in that moment, and to consider different mechanisms, different questions, or to spend editor time elsewhere. Under this viewpoint, closure as a BADRFC can be seen as a consensus of no consensus from the RFC.
See also
[edit]- WP:BADRFC, an essay arguing the opposite point