This page is a redirect. The following categories are used to track and monitor this redirect:
|
to frame it, ask on the talk page of this project. Shortcut WP:RFCNOTWP:RFCNOT The use of requests for comment on user conduct has been discontinued. In...
Click to read more »with escalating responses to misconduct detailed from WP:RFCBEFORE to WP:RFCNOT. So you can relax and not let this sort of situation cause undue stress...
Click to read more »they are for) is in the category with moves, merges and splits. See WP:RFCNOT.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:13, 25 January 2020 (UTC) Page: Oxford Street (edit...
Click to read more »involved editor: Casprings ...as it's counter to WP:RFCNOT, acts as a simultaneous (quasi-)RM so it's also counter to WP:RMCM ("Do...
Click to read more »than a short statement, it is yet another WP:WALLOFTEXT. I've closed WP:RFCNOT. Please suspend Prisencolin for a suitable length of time. I'd recommend...
Click to read more »January 2022 (UTC) Merges are explicitly not appropriate for RfCs per WP:RFCNOT. And another admin actually posted that clarification in the article's talk...
Click to read more »page. Thank you. Prisencolin (talk) 21:53, 8 February 2021 (UTC) Closed WP:RFCNOT after objections. William Allen Simpson (talk) 05:07, 10 February 2021 (UTC)...
Click to read more »people voiced support for that idea, and then immediately stumbled upon WP:RFCNOT which explicitly says that renaming categories should not be done using...
Click to read more »editor filing usually has ignored or is unaware of WP:RFCBEFORE and WP:RFCNOT. Particularly egregious examples may have poorly worded, non-neutral questions...
Click to read more »read WP:RFCNOT and its use by the Dispute Resolution page as a defining description of what an RfC can and cannot do. It cannot, per RFCNOT, change the...
Click to read more »StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 22:48, 10 January 2023 (UTC) WP:RFCNOT — all category discussions are here. Not WT:ALBUMS either. We often discuss...
Click to read more »and spamming RFCs and other new discussions outside of CfD contrary to WP:RFCNOT. William Allen Simpson (talk) 11:57, 10 February 2021 (UTC) Multiple users...
Click to read more »all centered around the OPs timestamp. No one gives a flying toss about RFCNOT, I'll just restore the close seeing as no one else gives a flying toss about...
Click to read more »and spamming RFCs and other new discussions outside of CfD contrary to WP:RFCNOT. William Allen Simpson (talk) 11:57, 10 February 2021 (UTC) Multiple users...
Click to read more »a page move. As far as policy-based rationales, this is supported by WP:RFCNOT. Looking at the discussion that added that section, it was a conversation...
Click to read more »discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows. Closed RfC per WP:RFCNOT. This is covered by WP:SPS, WP:UGC, and WP:RSPUSE. RfCs are for proposals...
Click to read more »ran to ANI to make false accusations instead). The section below that, RFCNOT, certainly does not list "disputes with more than 2 editors" in it as something...
Click to read more »perfectly honest, I didn't even realize it was expressly proscribed by WP:RFCNOT, and I'm guessing most other editors don't either. And I think there's a...
Click to read more »is not really a place for RfCs (or at least one of this nature.) Per WP:RFCNOT, The use of requests for comment on user conduct has been discontinued....
Click to read more »and occupation, where such matters are supposed to be decided. (See WP:RFCNOT.) This is one of a series of such discussions over a period of more than...
Click to read more »