I have added - after one month from opening - this is plenty - if you can't make a case after one month then you haven't got one - Youreallycan 07:58, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like this was the long term position recently removed in this edit diff - Youreallycan 08:03, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no deadline. There never has been a firm deadline. The "30 day" idea only comes from the default for the RFC bot, which doesn't have anything to do with RFC/Us. In fact, most successfully resolved RFC/Us (ones that result in agreements) either take much less than 30 days, or somewhat longer. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:58, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Few RFC users result in any agreement at all and the are usually a point on a process to arbitration - There has historically been a deadline as per my presented diff - the removal of the deadline was undiscussed - please do not revert to it without WP:Consensus and discussion - If you can not make a case and gain community consensus for it after thirty days, its over - its very attacking to allow RFC users to continue for unlimited time lengths - one opponent posts one days a small comment and another a few days later a small comment and the RFC User is allowed to remain open for as long as his opponents want - NO - Youreallycan 23:15, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that endless nightmares should not be permitted, but introducing a fourth criteria, which didn't have any instructions on how to deal with it, just created confusion. So I've merged it to the 'inactivity' item, since you do both of them the same way.
- The main problem with a "30-day timer" or with any specific magic number is that we've had people game the system by quietly dropping off Wikipedia or simply stalling for 30 days, and then thinking that if they can resist all compromise for exactly 720 hours, then they're home free. We've also seen disputes get a 'second wind' and actually result in real progress after a couple of weeks. But it's not good to have RFC/Us stringing on for multiple months. The only real solution to that problem, unfortunately, is more people being willing to close them, which we don't have. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:21, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest the following changes to the RFC/U closing policy for RFC/U closed for inactivity.
===Closing due to inactivity===
RfC/Us are closed when no additional complaints are registered for an extended period of time, and/or the dispute appears to have stopped. Typically, the major activity in an RfC/U is usually within the first couple of weeks, and few discussions are productive after a very long time. On average, activity falls at an RfC/U after the first couple of weeks, and they are often closed a couple of weeks after major activity has ended even if the dispute is not fully resolved. Discussions may be closed early if the dispute has been resolved (see #Closing by agreement below), or, occasionally, discussions may continue longer if they appear to be making progress towards resolving the dispute. When closing for inactivity, the closure may provide a summery that provides a neutral and concise summery of the RFC/U. Any summery that closes a RFC/U for inactivity should summarize all major view points. If a summery is added, it should only be done by an uninvolved editor. To close the RfC/U due to inactivity:
- Delist the RfC/U so that it no longer appears at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct/UsersList in line with the instructions on that page.
- Add the following text to the top of the RfC/U: {{rfcuarchivetop}}.
- Add the following text to the bottom of the RfC/U (below where it says "--->"): ==Summary==
- Write the summary that that provides a neutral summery of the RFC/U (Optional)
- Add the following text below that so that it appears at the bottom of the RfC/U: {{rfcuarchivebottom}}.
- Add it to the archives at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct/Archive.
It should be the policy to allow an uninvolved editor to provide a summery when closing a RFC/U for inactivity. To resolve any dispute, one needs to define it. If the RFC/U basically breaks down, at least having a neutral summery provides an understanding of what is at dispute. This can be important in the future and at least provides a place to quickly understand the dispute.Casprings (talk) 03:02, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Query What precisely is meant by a "neutral summary"? A list of points made by each person leaving comments? A weighted average of the !votes for each comment? A weighted average but dividing to prevent a person having !votes more than once per RfC/U? A summary listing "good" exactly balanced by "bad" commentary? Or the simple "Nothing was decided here much at all -- so let's move on" which is the status quo ante for many of these in the past? Collect (talk) 21:32, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]