Misplaced Pages

talk:Requests for comment: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 22:08, 15 February 2007 editInShaneee (talk | contribs)15,956 edits →[]← Previous edit Latest revision as of 21:40, 24 December 2024 edit undoSoni (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers10,932 edits →RFC on signing RFCs: Closing discussion (DiscussionCloser v.1.7.3-8) 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{talkheader|wp=yes|noarchive=yes|search=no|shortcut=WT:RFC}}
{{shortcut|]}}
{{tmbox|text='''NOTE:''' This talk page is '''not''' the place to post notices of disputes or requests for comment, or to ask questions about changes you would like to make to individual articles. Please follow ].}}
{| class="messagebox standard-talk"
{{info|'''Are you having trouble getting your RfC listed?''' Please ]. If the bot hasn't run in the last few hours, then please alert ]. If the bot is apparently running, then the problem is almost certainly with the template formatting. To get help with formatting the template correctly, please leave a message, including the name of the page where you want to start the RfC, at the bottom of this page.}}
|-
{{FAQ|collapsed=no}}
|<big>'''NOTE:''' This is '''not''' the place to post notices of disputes or requests for comment.</big> Please follow ].</big>
{{WikiProject banner shell|
|}
{{WikiProject Dispute Resolution}}
}}
{{archive box|search=yes|bot=MiszaBot II|age=40|
*For why RfC was created, see:
**]
#]
#]
#]
#]
#]
#]
#]
#]
#]
#]
#]
#]
#]
#]
#]
#]
#]
#]
#]
#]
#]
}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}}
|maxarchivesize = 200K
|counter = 21
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
|algo = old(40d)
|archive = Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for comment/Archive %(counter)d
}}


== RFC signer ==
{| class="infobox" width="270px"

What is the current consensus on whether an RFC should be signed with the filer's username? I see there was a discussion about this in , where most agreed that the filer should be identified. Asking this question after an RFC was left unsigned , which although is in line with the RFC information page, is a rare occurrence and obscures accountability whenever it is required. I think the RFC information should be changed to reflect the consensus of editors. ] (]) 10:19, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
:There was a discussion on this ]. The opinion seemed to be that it is acceptable, even sometimes beneficial for them not to be signed, as it let’s editors come to an opinion on the question without being prejudiced by their opinion of the opener.
:It’s not all that rare; ]. ] (]) 10:35, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
::9% is rare. They can avoid prejudice by having the statement filed by an admin for example, not necessarily by having an empty signature. I think after all these discussions an RFC on the way to open an RFC is needed. ] (]) 10:50, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
:Given page history is publicly accessible, I don’t understand the line "obscures accountability" - if you want to know, can’t you just check the history? ] (]) 10:52, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
:: If the RfC question is posed in a perfectly neutral way, it shouldn't be possible to determine the opinion of the opener from the question. The problem comes when a non-neutral question is unsigned, not when a neutral question is unsigned. Requiring a signature will encourage the opener to be more careful in drafting the question. I could imagine an exception for committee-drafted RfCs like we have on VPP sometimes, but otherwise I think that everything that appears on any type of discussion page should indicate who put it there. An RfC on this would be interesting, but I think VPP would be the right place and it would need a discussion first. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 11:11, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
:::This assumption is false. Some editors are well-known for holding certain viewpoints (e.g., pro-infobox, anti-pseudoscience), and as a result, merely adding our names makes it possible to determine the opinion of the opener. The username can also act like waving the proverbial red flag in front of a bull: "Oh, ''him''. I'd better go vote against whatever that is" or "My friend started an RFC. I should go help her win". ] (]) 16:36, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
:::: {{Re|WhatamIdoing}} I know this argument and I don't believe it. There is no evidence that any appreciable number of votes occur other than on account of the opinion/POV of the voter. The argument also ignores existing votes. In most cases the originator votes, so if someone was to choose whether/how to vote on account of their opinion of the originator, the originator's vote is much more likely to be the motive. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 00:53, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::We could argue all day about how many is an "appreciable number", but we seem to agree that it actually does happen sometimes. ] (]) 17:22, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
::That is why I mentioned obscure not prevent. ] (]) 11:14, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
:::All of that was mentioned in the prior discussion. Another argument against signing an RfC is just a philosophical one: The request isn't personal, so there's nothing to sign. The requester isn't a secret, it's just not part of the request. It's like the reason that you don't sign a Misplaced Pages article when you write one. ] (]) 18:47, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
::::90% + of people who do RFCs sign them. ] (]) 19:04, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
::::Articles are not signed because they are joint work and public-facing. Also because wiki usernames are meaningless to the readership. Also because articles would be a horrible mess after many edits. None of those reasons apply to RfCs, so the analogy fails. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 00:54, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::Fair enough. There are enough other reasons not to sign a Misplaced Pages article that I should not have used it as an analogy. For me, the main reason not to sign a Misplaced Pages article is that it isn't personal, like some people believe about their RfC requests. ] (]) 18:36, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::Just woke up one day and thought I will make a non personal RFC about something I don't care about, right? ] (]) 18:43, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::RFCs can be joint work, too.
:::::I think the case you need to make is not "Under ordinary circumstances, signing an RFC is normal and desirable" but "I can hereby prove that under no circumstance whatsoever is it appropriate for an RFC question to be displayed in ] without at least the ''wrong'' username". Because that's what is suggested above: That it would be preferable to have the RFC misleadingly signed by someone who is not actually asking the RFC question ("having the statement filed by an admin for example") than to have it unsigned. ] (]) 16:33, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::Exceptions are fine, we can note those. Otherwise, simply follow common practice and sign, no-one will complain about that. ] (]) 16:38, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::::The problem isn't that nobody complains about the most common practice. The problem is that sometimes the most common practice results in more harm than benefit. ] (]) 16:44, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::::Apparently that's only in theory. Do you have some examples of such harm? ] (]) 16:46, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::Sure: I've personally felt drawn to oppose whatever is being recommended because I recognize the username in the question. I'd like to think that I'm enough of an adult to consider the question fairly or to walk away, but I'm also enough of an adult to recognize that an RFC signed by User:TeeteringOnTBAN is not going to get the same response as the same one from User:Unknown or User:Friend. How about you? Are you a paragon of virtue who is never biased by reputation and past experiences with people, or maybe you just have a hard time remembering names? ] (]) 18:53, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::Every RFC is like that in my area. ] (]) 19:06, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
:Looking at the precipitating event:
:* @], when you say "accountability", you mean "knowing who to blame for starting an RFC about removing ", right?
:* I wonder if we should take quite the opposite approach, and recommend ''against'' signing RFCs in articles classifed as ].
:] (]) 16:43, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
::Unnecessary, we have lots of RFCs without any problems, it's just the unsigned ones we complain about. ] (]) 16:47, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
:::Wrong, I never complain about unsigned RfCs (un''dated'' RfCs I will add a timestamp to), but I often complain about RfCs that are failing in some other way; sometimes I fix these up because I suspect that the filer might not understand my explanation. Examples: ]; ]; ]; ]. --] &#x1f339; (]) 18:31, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
::::That's you, we're complaining here ;) We have complained about it before, now we havin another go. ] (]) 18:35, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
::::Maybe we'll have a (signed) RFC about it. ] (]) 18:35, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
::Not sure what you are trying to ask about but I won’t be trying to remember details about more than half a year old incident and not sure what is meant with precipitating incident. Accountability as in knowing who to ask when the statement is not neutral/not representative of the discussion/etc. As for the argument that identity of opener shouldn’t affect discussion, this would be also true for everything, including even edits or discussions, so I can’t see why RfC should be a unique exception. ] (]) 19:17, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
:::Are you claiming that the RFC question is non-neutral? Here's a copy of the entire question:
:::"Should the following sentence be added to the lede?
:::{{tqb|In its investigation on 20 October 2023, Forensic Architecture concluded the blast was the result of a munition fired from the direction of Israel}}
:::"
:::If not, then what kind of "accountability" are you needing in this RFC? Or are you only saying that, hypothetically, if someone did need to have a discussion about an RFC question, then it would be unfortunate if you had to waste 30 seconds looking up the username first? I wonder how long it would take if the OP had taken you up on your advice to have an admin sign it instead. Then you'd start with the wrong user. ] (]) 19:27, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
::::Wouldna took any time at all if they signed it like everybody else does. ] (]) 19:34, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
::::I genuinely have no idea what you are trying to get at. I clearly said if it is not neutral, I did not see that any specific question has been non-neutral. 30 seconds is a long time, it should be clear without having to dig anywhere. ] (]) 19:38, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::So you think there's nothing wrong with the question, and therefore you have no need to contact the editor over it. Why exactly do you immediately need to know the editor's name again? Just personal preference? A desire for an unnecessary level of uniformity? ] (]) 15:38, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::A natural desire for transparency and accountability if necessary. ] (]) 20:28, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::::Transparency and accountability are provided by the page history. Desiring these things does not explain why you believe the username need to be immediately visible, without clicking on the page history. ] (]) 17:25, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::::The answer is obvious: Make wants to judge the RFC question by who wrote it. This is the exact reason I think RFCs should ''not'' be signed: to stop, or at least slow down, people from doing exactly that. ] (]) 18:51, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::As someone keeps pointing out tho, it is kinda easy to see who put it up. ] (]) 18:52, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::If you're on the RfC page, you can look at the page history, sure. But many people won't have had the RfC's page on their watchlists, they will arrive by some other means. Perhaps they habitually check ] etc. and from those, pick out RfCs that they are interested in. What they see on those pages is the ], terminating with a timestamp. I don't think that the lack of an optional signature will make these people say "I won't bother with that one because it's unsigned". But maybe they'll think "it's signed by my nemesis, so I'll go over there and oppose it, whatever the arguments in favour might be". --] &#x1f339; (]) 20:10, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::...as the internet has taught us, having to click (or scroll) is enough to dissuade like 90% of people. ] (]) 20:49, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::Did you seriously write "30 seconds is a long time"? {{lol}} ] (]) 18:50, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::Yes, (no pun intended) and it was not sarcastic; editors should not have to spend any amount of time looking for what in my opinion should be naturally presented.
::::::And no, the aim here is not to judge the RFC question by who wrote it; most RFC questions I have seen are in the form of "should X contain Y?" I can't see how this question can be judged based on the RFC's opener.
::::::All in all, seeing an RFC without the opener's username does not feel natural to me, just as an edit summary without one wouldn't (in this case as well it could be argued that hiding it would protect the content from supposed prejudice). ] (]) 18:50, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Selfstudier, I think these are the reasons for both sides. Have I missed any that seem important to you?

{| class="wikitable"
|+ Should we require all RFCs to be signed with a username?
|- |-
! {{yes}}, we should require this.
!align="center"|]<br/>]
! {{no}}, we should not require this.
----
|- |-
| scope="col" width="50%" |
|
* If an RFC is unsigned, and I want to know who started it, I have to waste seconds looking in the page history.
*For why RfC was created, see
* RFC used to ban signatures, but since editors were given a choice, signing has become the most popular choice (10 out of 11 RFCs).
**]
* If someone wants to start and RFC without their name appearing at the top of the section, they can ask an admin to sign the admin's username instead.
**]
* We could also make a list of exceptions but still officially require signing your name.
*]: Feb 2004–May 2005
| scope="col" width="50%" |
*]: May 2005–Sep 2005
* Some RFCs are written by more than one person, so signing one name is inaccurate. Signing with someone else's name would be even worse, because the page history would not have an accurate name.
*]: Sep 2005–Oct 2005
* Unsigned RFCs promote fairness. Without knowing who started the RFC, the responses will not be biased by wanting to support a friend or reacting to the reputation of the editor who started it.
*]: Oct 2005–May 2006
* Not including a username is important for some subjects, when an individual's signature might be seen as disclosing the editor's view on the subject. For example, if the username is either in the Hebrew or the Arabic alphabet, and the article is about Palestinians, then editors will assume that the person starting the RFC is biased.
*]: May 2006–''not yet full''
|} |}


] (]) 19:23, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
== Proposal re user RFCs ==

Please see ]. <b>]</b> 10:11, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

==Desperate help needed at the ] article! Please get involved!!==

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 ]. 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 ] 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 ] 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. ] 06:16, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

== RfC rules question ==

] created an RfC against ] 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 <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 03:32, 21 October 2006 (UTC)), the page will be deleted.''
I already signed myself in "users certifying the basis of the dispute" at ]. But do I need to add evidence of trying and failing to resolve the situation myself? I have had arguments with Masterhatch about this previously, but I think Ryulong already provided enough evidence. ] | ] 15:02, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

== does anyone read RfC/politics?? ==

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?--] 20:33, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

: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. —]→]&nbsp;&bull; 06:34, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

== RFC in the middle of an AFD? ==

An editor unhappy with an AFD on an article he created has opened an RFC in the middle of an AFD: ], 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 ]. ] 02:56, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

: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. —]→]&nbsp;&bull; 06:40, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

==All parties==
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? ] 15:31, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
: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 ] or ]. —]→]&nbsp;&bull; 23:39, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
::What article is it? —]→]&nbsp;&bull; 23:42, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
:::I don't know if it will be a problem, but I put a Request for Comment on ] on Monday, and ], 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. ] 00:38, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
::::To be more precise, I wanted to know whether -- granting that a consensus is reached -- I could edit accordingly. ] 02:10, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Possibly, he didn't notice it because it was placed at the top of the page; I have moved it to the bottom. If you reach a consensus, you should make the appropriate edits; it should at least get the person to notice and respond. —]→]&nbsp;&bull; 02:19, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
:Thank you. We can hope it will work. ] 04:07, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

==Categories==
Is it proper for another editor to add a RFC to a different list? I had made a RFC in ] and listed it on ], and the other editor listed it, again, on ]. ] 04:27, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
: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. —]→]&nbsp;&bull; 22:16, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

== Reworking some of the categories ==

] is perpetually empty or nearly empty, and articles about Carnatic music or Ernest Hemingway do not belong alongside articles about CNN and Eminem, so I think ] should be split into something like "Popular culture" and "Literature, art, and language", or instead the 'serious' subjects can simply be merged into History? —]→]&nbsp;&bull; 22:36, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

:I agree that they should be separated. Though I think just creating an ''Electronic media: Television, Film, and Computer and video games'' page should be enough. I also think we should leave Language and Linguistics separate, even if it's a typically small section. - ] 17:11, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
::It's a typically ''empty'' section; few people will go to it and RfCs there will not receive a response. The categories should be divided so that people interested or knowledgeable in a certain area of topics find them together. —]→]&nbsp;&bull; 17:15, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

That is, people posting RfCs brings a lot of traffic to the page which then responds to the RfC. If no one posts, no one is there to respond to the stray RfC either. —]→]&nbsp;&bull; 21:32, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

:Well, in looking them over:
:*I still think that ''Electronic media: Television, Film, and Computer and video games'' should be created as its own sub-section.
:* split history and geography into:
::*Physical geography and political boundaries (such as countries) - Open to suggestions for a better name. Essentially it's what would be found in an atlas, plus geographical/geological themes.
::*History.
:* Merge history with art and literature, and language and linguistics (three now smaller but related groupings).
: Thoughts and suggestions welcome. : ) - ] 20:06, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

*For electronic media, why not just calling "popular culture" or "Media and popular culture", that's a simpler title and is basically equivalent to what's meant by electronic media, without making it sound like the technical specifications of the Internet Protocol should be in this category.
*For geography, are there really enough articles for this category?
*Merging history with art and literature, etc. makes sense. After all, it's all history if it's not contemporary culture. —]→]&nbsp;&bull; 03:08, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

== ] RfC ==

I've moved the ] 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. ] 00:08, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

== Requests for comment/User conduct#Use of administrator privileges ==

I have been directed to the subpage ] by several administrators who question that I am following the correct procedure to appeal a 6-hours block in ANI (as per ]). 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? --] 17:46, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

: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. ] 17:55, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

==How does an editor go about closing a RfC?==

As per:

:In order to remain listed at ], 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 <nowiki>&#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;</nowiki>. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 21:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: <tt>{{CURRENTTIME}}, {{CURRENTDAY}} {{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTYEAR}} (UTC)</tt>.

How does a wikieditor go about closing a RfC, or request that a RfC be closed?

Are there any cases which have recently been closed, which I can see or talk to the wikieditors involved? ] (]) 16:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
:If it's a user conduct RFC, there's a section on ] that details how to go about closing the RFC. ~ ''''']'''''<sup>(]|])</sup> 20:08, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

== How do you respond to an RFC? ==

] 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) Hejsan alla<0)

:Amended, . —]→]&nbsp;&bull; 23:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

== Article Content RFC topic area organization ==

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? ~ ''''']'''''<sup>(]|])</sup> 20:10, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

:What is the topic? —]→]&nbsp;&bull; 23:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

==Request for comment on requests for comment==
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. <font color="green">]</font> 23:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
: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. ~ ''''']'''''<sup>(]|])</sup> 15:20, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

: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? —]→]&nbsp;&bull; 23:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

::On this subject could someone please come and comment on ], 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 ] 00:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

== Question regarding process ==

Is it proper to post an outside view before a RfC has been certified? -] <small><sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub></small> 15:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
:I don't know if it is or not, but if I had something to say I'd go ahead and ]. ~ ''''']'''''<sup>(]|])</sup> 15:58, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

== where to put an an rfc about an article about a company? ==

The sections listed don't seem to include an appropriate one. ] 17:16, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
:Economy and trade maybe? This is why I think there should be a miscellaneous section. ~ ''''']'''''<sup>(]|])</sup> 17:49, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

== Request for Comment for several editors in relation particular articles ==
Can I submit a request for comment on several editors who share the same POV on particular articles for violation of certain policies? I have prepeared my draft here . Can I open a case here that covers it all together? Thanks --] 01:15, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

: I added the RfC but it was removed. .
: It seems that there was no objection on having an RfC that includes several editors on one topic before the RfC was filed.
: Reasons provided: ''Not a valid RFC. Explicit rules: one dispute, single user, all signers must have tried to resolve.''
: 1. It is one dispute. Violation of WP:RS and WP:NPOV; mainly timewasting attempts to trash sound academic research. And this way of behavior can not be addressed through article RfC.
: 2. Since these editors support each other on all discussions, the issue was addressed in one RfC. Separate RfC's can be posted but they will have much in common. I believe it is the best to present everything in one RfC.
: 3. All signers have tried to deal with this issue on the talk pages. There is a huge discussion on the Antisemitism talk pages which deals with reliability of Encyclopedia of Islam, that of Johnson. etc, etc. The dispute is in no way a recent one.
: --] 20:47, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

*If I'd seen this earlier, I'd have answered the first question "no", and that would have ended it there. The instructions for a user RFC are very specific: the second sentence says, ''This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users.'' --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 06:07, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

:Thanks for eventually replying to the comment. Since the best to present this particular dispute is in one RfC , would you please let me know where can I discuss that. Village Pump? --] 06:23, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

::An article RFC is the right thing for content disputes such as this. --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 15:32, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

== What do you do if there has already been an RfC for a user? ==

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. --] 06:08, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
:Just follow the directions on the ] page and title it MONGO 3, since there already was a 1 and number 2 was deleted.--] 13:24, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

== ] ==
Has seen nothing but the occasional signatory for the last two months. Can this be archived now? --] 04:10, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
:I'd say ]. ] 01:07, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
::...Sure it's kosher to archive my own RfC? If so, I'll go ahead. --] 03:21, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
:::I am not involved in this and have not previously checked out the RfC for InShaneee - but I think that it is extremely bad form for the user under RfC to archive it, especially when the RfC looks like the user in question InShaneee has abused their powers (do not hold me to this - only had a quick look now). <strike>Surely if this is the case this RfC is going to go further - potentially to Jimbo or ArbCom.</strike> ] 02:09, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
::::Doh...I thought no one was going to respond to that, so I went ahead and did it. You can restore it if you think that's appropriate, but it IS essentially dead, and has been for over a month. --] 05:23, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
:::::No its fine, have checked with a user who gave a review and think it is okay. Of course there really should be people who read these pages that will close the discussion for you - especially in the case of an admin RfC. That way any perceived ] will be removed. Cheers ] 13:58, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
::::::My thoughts exactly. That's kind of what I was hoping would happen when someone else inspected the situation. --] 23:46, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
:Despite being archived, this is suddently getting a lot of traffic again...could someone do something about that? --] 14:06, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
::Usually, RfCs continue until resolution is found. Many people found fault in the subject of the RfC, and the fact that there is no resolution combined with the number of people who agree with the RFC DEFINITELY does not warrant its closure. - ] ] 23:53, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
:::The question was directed to someone uninvolved. --] 00:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
::::Does it matter? The RfC is still active and should not have been closed, especially by someone with a conflict of interests. Just because you archived it, doesn't mean no one's allowed to post further comment. - ] ] 00:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
:::::Yes, it does. That's how an archive works. If you read above, the archiving was endorsed by more than one other user. --] 00:26, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
::::::One person said "unless someone has a problem with it". And tell me, why do you seek to have it closed? You archived it because it is inactive, and ironically, the more active it gets, the more closed off it gets. Why should an active RfC be closed? - ] ] 00:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
:::::::You opened the RfC; of course you have a problem with its closure. If someone uninvolved in all of this believes it was closed early or needs to be reopened, I will be more than happy to do it myself. --] 00:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
::::::::It was closed by a party with a conflict of interests on the basis that it is inactive. If its inactivity was why it was closed, you wouldn't be objecting to its unarchiving now that it IS active. - ] ] 00:42, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
:::::::::It was inactive; you've chosen to make it active again. I asked for someone else to do archive it, and I was told to do it myself. I did, and my action was later approved by two separate users. --] 00:44, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
:::::::::This discussion is still ongoing within the last few seconds; do not try to 'win' by going ahead and reverting to your preferred version of the page. Whichever version belongs there will be implemented once this is complete. In the meantime, if you are so sure that my actions were innapropriate, you should request they they be reviewed by someone uninvolved with this situation. --] 00:49, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
::::::::::And it's active now. I didn't make it active. Before I did anything to unarchive it, YOU said it was inactive. People are still discussing it. If the reason for archiving it was because if its inactivity, then being active would warrant unarchiving. It's as simple as that. And besides, the people you asked agreed with the archiving because it was inactive. Are you saying that if you asked them for input on it now that they'd say the same thing?
::::::::::I am very confused with your objection. If you feel that inactivity is reason enough to archive an RfC, then you should also agree that activity is a reason to not archive it. It seems like you'd do anything to get rid of this RfC. The fact that you are so against it being brought back up doesn't scream objectivity. You yourself gave the best reason to bring it back - it's not finished. And most disturbingly, you reacted to its activity by attempting to squelch the activity. - ] ] 00:55, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
:::::::::::I don't appreciate your accusations and insinuations. As I keep saying, since we both disagree, why not simply ask someone uninvolved to comment on that? Do you have some objection to outside review? --] 00:57, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
::::::::::::This is an extremely trivial case that requires no outside view.
::::::::::::Answer this one question. Why should it remain archived? - ] ] 00:58, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
:::::::::::::Simply because it is now closed. If you wish to 'continue the dispute', I suggest mediation, and would like to express on the record here that I am completely open to an attempt by the MedCab or MedCom to find an amicable solution to this. --] 01:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
::::::::::::::And of course, it serves SO much of a purpose to try to prevent an RfC from being reopened. So tell me - are you implying that it is bad for Misplaced Pages to resolve issues?
::::::::::::::Oh, and here's a suggestion - actually apologize for all of the things you've done wrong and stop abusing your position as an admin as if it made you king over all of the lowly Wikipedians. - ] ] 01:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::I will ask you again to keep your tone civil. You are now doing nothing but making hateful accusations. --] 01:17, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
:For the record, I still would like to hear from an outside party what their opinion on reopening a closed RfC is. --] 01:43, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
::I can be an outside party for this. My opinion is that if the RfC was properly closed, it should not be re-opened because people wish to argue again; they're closed for a reason. But I'm not convinced it ''was'' properly closed; it seems that absolutely nobody uninvolved agreed that it should be closed. -] <small><sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub></small> 01:46, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
:::Maybe I was misreading it, but I thought that was what Lethanoil's second comment was indicating. I originally took Just H's comment to mean that as well, though I could see how it might not. --] 01:56, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
::::I'm pretty sure Lethanoil was saying he got another editor who had commented in the case to agree. While that's better, definitely, it's still not an uninvolved party. And I don't see Just H's comment anywhere? -] <small><sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub></small> 01:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
:::::It's up there - he recommends that InShaneee be bold and go ahead and do it himself. Anyways, I think that regardless of how the RfC was closed, since it's now become active again there should be some place for the new comments. We could always build a second RfC to reflect the more recent comments, but that seems confusing to me and wasteful. Just re-opening the earlier one would seem the more reasonable approach to me. However, I don't have any idea if that would be correct policy-wise. --]] 02:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
::::::My problem exactly. I'd like to say that 'closed' means closed, but I can't find anything in writing to adress this type of situation. --] 02:09, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
:::::::I'm not entirely sure that's a bad thing; it prevents something being closed unless it actually should be, and people agree on that. -] <small><sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub></small> 02:17, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
::::::::But the question remains what to do here. Can we start off by agreeing that it was inactive (by the definition) when I archived it? --] 02:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
::Of course, nobody should be seriously disputing that. -] <small><sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub></small> 02:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
:::Alright, that's a start. Now, here's where I see an issue forming. This is happening fairly recently, but what if a year had passed? Or two? Should we say that anyone can reopen an RfC at anytime? My other issue is, I don't think that any significant arguments have really been added since the closure; is that worth the trouble of reopening? --] 02:31, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
::::On the second question, I'm in favor of reopening if there is more to say (except in rare situations.) So I'd say it's worth the trouble, generally.
::::On the first question, I'm not sure what the community view is on closed RfC's - ''are'' they always available to re-open, or is it a dead issue? I don't know - I can see arguments on both sides, but don't know of any guidance on that point. (But if you do know of any, please point me to it; I could definitely use a Wiki policy about now to help sort this stuff.)
::::Even if RfCs should eventually be dead, however, I personally don't think that the slope you propose will slip. If we believe that RfCs should "die" at some point, 1-2 years is plenty of time for them to be dead and buried.
::::What makes this situation hard to sort out is that the RfC had closed only about a week before it suddenly got "hot" again. While we may want to have closure on these at some point, at the same time we don't want a rule that says "once closed (even prematurely) the RfC's always closed" - and an RfC that gets hot soon after closing is typically prematurely closed. At the same time, however, this one was more or less inactive for a while before hand, so it's hard to call the closing premature. Nonetheless, the arguments that have been added seem to be generally related, and so make more sense on this RfC than on another one. So all that confusion about the proper course of action gets me back to my above comment - I think if there are a few substantive comments to add that fit with this RfC, it's just cleaner to add them to it rather than starting another one. That also creates a more complete record, in case this thing is ever needed for anything. If there were a whole separate issue, however, we might want to make a second RfC. But I have no policy guidance to support that - I just think it's a reasonable approach. (And now enough long-windedness from me.)--]] 02:55, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
:::::Alright, fair enough. So I suppose here's the next question: can we call what has recently been added 'substantial'? --] 03:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
::::::I'd call the new additions substantive (i.e. they're not just formatting fixes or someone saying "me too.") So, yes, I think. By the way, to raise another issue - I'm not sure, but this RfC may be becoming inactive again. If so, I'm of the opinion that even if we reopen it, it can be put back to sleep in a week or two. Does anyone disagree with that? --]] 03:37, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
:::::::In that lies another problem that I am actually concerned about: what happens if Link has something new to say a few weeks after that? It's always been my concern that this will be dragged out to perpetuity. I'm alright with your suggestion of leaving it up for a week or two for now, but I'd like to discuss how this might be handled in the future. --] 03:45, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
::::::::It's a tough question - I'm thinking about how we could keep this from dragging on in perpetuity. I don't think closing off the RfC would really do it, because if the issue is going to drag on, it will just drag on somewhere else (and I'd think it would be better in an RfC than in talk pages and such). My initial reaction is that we either have to hope that things have run their course and don't drag on, or have to resolve things somehow and then declare it water under the bridge. (I've got no idea how we can resolve it, but let me think some more about that.) In any event, you're right - this thing can't go on forever. --]] 04:29, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
:::::::::Alright. If you think of anything, please do contact me. I suppose for the moment, we just leave the RfC up and see where things go. Can you keep an eye on it? Obviously, I can't archive it myself a second time. Thanks again everyone for your thoughts here. --] 14:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
I disagree strongly that these so-called "additions" were substantive.
# "RfCs brought solely to harass or subdue an adversary are not permitted."
# RfC's are supposed to be about ONE dispute. This is a pure pile-on of ]. Quickpolls were for the 5 minute hate. RFC's were supposed to be focused. Here are the January changes. . Nothing of substance but whiny users whining about someone slapping them on the wrist. ] - ] 21:13, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
:Substantive means "having substance." You disagree with the substance, and that's your right. But it's not the case that they were, say, formatting changes or very minor comments.--]] 21:18, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
:: Substantive means "having substance." You are confusing light and heat for mass. I'm not saying I disagree with their concerns - I'm saying their concerns are trivial, and that their obvious goal is not to have their concerns adressed (seeing as the only additive user has expressed his satisfaction, already), but rather to drive the final nail in. ] - ] 21:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
:::It's a rare bit of heat and light that can drive a nail without some variety of mass. Is that mass ''wrong''? Maybe. Would it go better somewhere else? Maybe. Does it sway any argument? Maybe not. But is it there? Of course. Your view of its purpose or its merit is inconsequential to this question. The question is "is this RfC being added to - is it active?" Yes, it is. You think the additions are in bad faith and don't help things, but they're clearly not patent nonsense or minor comments. And now if you want the last word on this, I'm going to bow out - it's fascinating, but somewhat rhetorical, so I'm going to go do work I actually get paid for. --]] 22:04, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
I've noticed a couple of recent signatories, but none with comments. At the risk of kicking an ant hill, does everyone agree that we can finally put this issue, and this RfC, to bed? If so, could someone with more technical prowess please do so? --]] 15:11, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
:I was just going to ask that myself. --] 15:22, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Less than 24 hours after this was closed, a ] has now been opened up. Any thoughts? --] 02:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
:I don't think the two are related (though I am at a loss for why the user in the second RfC felt the need to file one over a month after the events he's complaining about - I thought we had resolved that issue). --]] 03:12, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
::Nothing was resolved. I have been trying to get a meaningful response to my questions from InShaneee for that month - trying and failing to resolve the dispute. Surprised to see he's capable of complaining about RfCs against him, but not capable of stringing together just a couple of sentences to explain why he applied a block, even when given a month to do so. ] 09:30, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
:::As you can see, the personal attacks are already well underway. I think my main reason for posting here is I'd like to make sure that the old signatories from the last one don't flood in to keep this one open for another howeverlong. --] 15:51, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Now, my old RfC is being . Can someone please either look into this or pass it along to someone who can? --] 22:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

== Cindery's RFC ==

Would someone kindly format the RFC and move it to a subpage for her? I'd do it myself, but Cindery might have a problem with it if I did it. ---] <sup>(]/])</sup> 07:44, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
:Oh, I'm sorry, it's under User Conduct. ---] <sup>(]/])</sup> 07:45, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

== Added section to template ==

I've slapped a "what in the name of pete moss and the mulches is this about?" section . Starting with the end is usually a good thing. - <font color="black">]</font> 06:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


==I don't understand how to report a user==
Can someone explain the steps? I've seen the infobox markup, and the radio button which takes you to a separate page, but I don't really understand how to go about reporting someone who is breaking rules and being abusive. Please take this as an opportunity to make this system more accessible. Please explain.22:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC) {{unsigned|Joie de Vivre}}

== User who certified dispute now editing "Response" section ==

At ], ], who started the RfC and certified the basis for the dispute, is now the "Response" section, responding to my response. The instructions say that "Users signing other sections ('Statement of the dispute' and 'Outside Views') should not edit the 'Response' section", so I moved his comments to the talk page. He then , claiming "common practice". My understanding is that the "Response" section is for the user whose conduct is disputed, or other users who object to the initial "Statement of the dispute", and that further comments by the signers of the initial statement belong elsewhere. Is that correct? I'd appreciate advice on how to proceed. ] 21:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

== Early end to an RFC? ==

I'm having second thoughts about a RFC I initiated and may be interested in rescinding my endorsement of my own description. Since the RFC hasn't been certified yet, would a rescission bring an early end to the RFC? I would rather not drag everyone through a needless process. There would be only one other person endorsing the description. <b><font color="006400">]</font></b> (<font size="1"><sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub></font>) 06:13, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

==Help==
Could someone give me some advice regarding bringing an RFC's for a content dispute involving the ]? I've drafted a statement on my talk page and I'd appreciate some comment and perhaps mentoring before I make the request official. Many thanks. --] 12:27, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
:I've now filed the RFC at ]. I put it in the Media, Art and Literature section because there isn't one for architecture - hope this is ok. --] 16:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

== Request to delist the ] ==

] has not been certified for 4 days. I request that an admin delist this RfC. --] <font color = "blue"><sup>]</sup></font> 12:47, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
:I concur. The RfC is way beyond the deadline for certification, and its filer has acknowledged it to have been out of process.] 08:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, but I don't think it'll have to be an administrator that does it. I think I'll just be bold and do it myself. -- ] 20:15, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

== ] archives ==

...actually the archives don't exist at all. We should create an archive for this, as we do other boards, rather than just deleting old requests. This will especially help out to a) make sure the request hasn't come up before, and b) if a user is blocked, will help explain the block. Agree, disagree? ]<sup>]|]</sup> 06:14, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
* I was just going to ask about this myself. ] 16:48, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

*Same here; it's disconcerting, to say the least, to engage in a discussion, come back the following day, and just find that the whole thing has disappeared. --] (]) 14:35, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

*I agree. Why don't they just get archived with the other RfCs in the main ]?--] 19:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

== Cleanup of Math & Science RFCs ==

People have been cutting and pasting the top RFCs in math and science, resulting in a bizarre series of "sub-categories" like "Playstation 2" as a subset of "Math and Science" when there's a perfectly good "Technology" category just below. Tidied and sorted, I hope. I'm a little nervous about editing "meta" pages, but I decided to be bold and see if anyone complains. --] 13:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

== Proposal: RFC/User Clerks ==

I have posted a proposal for the creation of a clerk corps to help out at RFC/User ]; it's currently gathering crickets and dust over there, so hopefully some folks here might be interested in comment. ] <small>]</small> 16:48, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
:An excellent proposal. Note that ] never met the two-user certification threshhold, yet still somehow got listed.] 10:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
::No no no bob help us all no no no ... the last thing we need is yet _another_ set of minor chieftans here... If a backlog develops, just use one of the many "hey look at me" forums available. - <font color="black">]</font> 12:00, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
:::And that's the general response to the concept, which is why I've withdrawn the proposal. I seem to have misread the need for such a thing. I should note yet again that there was absolutely no intention to create a "set of minor chieftains" with this idea, something that I thought I had made abundantly clear in the proposal and the note on the Village Pump, but either way, it's obvious that it wouldn't gain consensus at any point in time anyhow, so. On to something else. ] <small>]</small> 22:49, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

== User who already responded to RfC deciding retroactively to certify ==

] decided to retroactively certify the RfC against me in spite of having already written a response that had informed the process. I ask that his certification be voided. --] 01:41, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
:Um... why should it be? -] <small>]</small> 01:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

== Move archive link to top of page? ==

Does anyone else think there should be a more prominent link on ] to the ]? --] 19:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

== New notification template ==

Just a quick note to let you all know there is a new notification template to inform users of discussions about their usernames: ] (just insert <nowiki>{{UsernameDiscussion}}</nowiki> in their talk page). Regards, ]<sup>]</sup> 20:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

:It's best to "subst:" the username templates:
::'''{{subst:]|'''''reason for objection'''''}}'''
::'''{{subst:]}}
::'''{{subst:]}}'''

:One advantage of this is that when that user edits the page to reply, the full text of your message (not just the template tag) will be visible in edit mode, so he can reply point by point if he likes.

:Also note that the templates will add the four-tildes signature for you, so you needn't add it yourself. This is explained on each template's page. But this feature only works right when subst'd.

:Typing something into that "reason for objection" space tells the user just what you find worrisome about the name, like "I worry that this name may be taken to imply an official role on Misplaced Pages." ] 22:09, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
::Sorry for missing this. Great work with the templates. Thanks, --]<sup>]</sup> 12:24, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

== Archiving username discussion ==

Right now, we simply remove stuff from ] once it has run its course. Should we perhaps archive them somewhere? I'm thinking of a system similar to ], in that it is a compressed version of the entire discussion (such as ]). Some of our discussions are short-and-sweet, while others (such as a recent one for ]) could be relevant to setting precedents when dealing with usernames.

What does everyone else think? ] <span style="color: #999;">// ] // ] //</span> 05:08, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
:Don't see the point. So little discussed there is earth shattering. Most usernames are changed and become history, or are left as they are, so i don't see how useful these archives would be. Especially for the short and sweet ones. Seems like a waste of time and server space. When this page starts making decisions that change the course of wikipedia, maybe. Right now it just isn't needed. ] | ] 05:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
::'''Disallow'''. Feature creep, no precedential value. Phooey. - ] <small>(])</small> 05:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
:::<nowiki>*shrug*</nowiki> This is why I asked before up and doing anything. :-) ] <span style="color: #999;">// ] // ] //</span> 05:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
::::What might be useful is when someone is blocked, leaving a link to the diff of the closed discussion on their talk page ... that way, if somoene wonders why a username was blocked a month down the line, they can see the discussion. --] 12:46, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
::Not needed, however, storing a list of the diffs used to removed a name would be nice. But who would do it? ]<small> <sup>(Need help? ])</sup></small> 16:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
::Actually, I can make a bot that finds any edit that removes an entire section, and adds a link the the last version of that section to an archive page. It would require no change of behavior in humans and will provide an archive that could be a great use in looking at future names. It can even run retroactively and provide an archive of all names past. ]<small> <sup>(Need help? ])</sup></small> 16:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
::In fact I have already downloaded the entire revision history of ], 35 megs. ]<small> <sup>(Need help? ])</sup></small> 17:19, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
*Wouldn't archiving the usernames take up a lot of space megabyte-wise? I agree it would help as a reference, I'm just concerned about the space-factor. ] 20:04, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

:The information is already being stored in the history, my archive would be a single line for each username with a link to it's already existing location in the history. ]<small> <sup>(Need help? ])</sup></small> 20:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
::True. I hadn' thought og that. Good idea. ] 21:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

*This continues a discussion a little up the page; as there, I support archiving. --] (]) 14:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

**Ok then, I will write an archive retrieval bot, any edit that removes a whole section will be name after that section and linked to on a special archive page. ]<small> <sup>(Need help? ])</sup></small> 15:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
***Once the archive exits, it may be worth the time going through it to find a list of precedents on what is acceptable or not under various headings: e.g. political, religious, illness, insults etc. I'm thinking of something similar to the ] at ]. It might help to ensure discussions stay focused and consistent? <span style="font-family: Verdana">]]</span> 17:12, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

::This is me manually pasting my programs output. I had to install a diff engine, it will detect any closing where a section heading is removed, and nothing is added: ] <- Check it out. ]<small> <sup>(Need help? ])</sup></small> 19:52, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
::Next thing for me to do is make it detect when multiple names are closed at once, and make the link to the last revision ''before'' it was removed. ]<small> <sup>(Need help? ])</sup></small> 19:56, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I think archiving them is a great idea.] 21:21, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

== This place is dead ==

Some RFCs don't even have a third party; all discussion is via the two parties. --<b><font color="orange">] ] ]</font></b> 15:03, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
:On the article side, I just randomly clicked on RfCs. Of nine that did not lead off into oblivion (i.e. the poster did not follow instructions, making it both more difficult for others to have commented and for me to even find the thing), six had comments from users not previously involved on the talk page. Of the other three, one or perhaps two had reached an amicable conclusion regardless (i.e. anyone coming to comment would find there is no need, and the RfC was probably premature). On the user side, I clicked on seven RfCs older than four days, all but one had outside comment. —]→]&nbsp;&bull; 19:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
:What in particular are you thinking of? The username board is pretty much always hopping, though I admit that I haven't checked out many of the other RfC boards... ] <span style="color: #999;">// ] // ] //</span> 06:34, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

== I created an archive for ] ==

I created an archive for ] at ]. I am currently manually pasting the output of my bot there, but once it is approved it will be automatically updated. Every time an edit takes place which removes a heading, that edit will be added to the archive with a list of headers effected. You can remove multiple reports at once, though they will all share the same edit summary. No change in human behavior is needed for this bot to work. ]<small> <sup>(Need help? ])</sup></small> 23:24, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

== RFC/NAME "Consensus=Allow" notification template ==

As a followup to Asterion's {{tl|UsernameDiscussion}}, please see {{tl|UsernameAllowed}}, so a user who missed the discussion of his name can be told of its favorable outcome. (The block and block notice would notify him of an '''un'''favorable outcome.) ] 06:07, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

==Architecture RFC subject area==
We currently have no specifically defined area to post architecture RFC's. I suggest renaming '''Media, art and literature''' to '''Art, Architecture, Literature and Media''' and moving ] to ] --] 10:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

== biting ==

Is anybody else tired of stuff where an new editor is promlty jumped on to change there username? I see this as biting and am getting very frustrated by it? While some usernames are obvious and blatnat, it seems like there are many editors out there whos sole job it is is to find a problem with usernames? I find this counter-productive personally. Do any other editors who work on this page want to weigh in? ] 17:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

:That is not jumping on someone, that is telling them of a discussion about their name. It does not even say the name is unacceptable, it just says a discussion has begun. ]<small> <sup>(Need help? ])</sup></small> 17:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
::First off, i provided the wrong diff. That notification is important. it is that concerned me. To to a new editor, that might be enough to scare them off. I guess I try to look at things back when I first started and that might have been enough to make me say screw it. I dont really know what would be better but, I feel that it is a bit harsh to jump on somebody like that. ] 18:00, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

:I see, it does bother me when someone tells a person their username is not allowed, when it is not a clear cut case and the ] has not finished or even started. The template that politely explains that a discussion is going on is rather new, and will most likely be used more often. I hope so at least. ]<small> <sup>(Need help? ])</sup></small> 18:07, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
::Would it be appropriate to drop {{user|Ryanpostlethwaite}} a friendly reminder about it? ] 18:09, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

::Its ok I get the message ]<sup>See ] or ]</sup> 18:11, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

:Yay! ]<small> <sup>(Need help? ])</sup></small> 18:12, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Let's also take into account that in one respect Ryan did exactly the right thing, by trying to discuss the issue directly with the user on the user's talk page first, rather than skipping that step to go straight to RFC/NAME. Kudos to Ryan for following ]'s and ]'s recommendations in that respect. Now the trick becomes how to phrase that approach in a gentle, friendly, and diplomatic way. We've been depending on each person to accomplish that trick in their own words. Perhaps a semi-boilerplate template, with a space to fill in for the specific concern, would help some of us. But here using the template {{tl|UsernameDiscussion}} isn't appropriate, since that's specifically to notify the user of an RFC/NAME already opened and underway. Let me see what I can do with yet another template, '''{{tl|UsernameConcern}}''' -- when that link turns blue, please check it out, and please-please-please suggest any improvements that come to mind. Thanks! ] 20:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

:Good thinking. ]<small> <sup>(Need help? ])</sup></small> 21:20, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

:{{tl|UsernameConcern}} is working. Try it out! So much of the phrasing is a matter of personal style that I encourage people to paraphrase it their own way if they prefer, or even write their own text as if this didn't exist -- but for those of us too harried and/or tired to type long notes or find diplomatic words, it may be helpful. ] 23:07, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

::Wow, did you type that on a silver keyboard? Very non-confrontational. I like it. ]<small> <sup>(Need help? ])</sup></small> 23:15, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

:::I like the template, and to be honest it would be exactly the template I would want to use if I ever talked to another user about their user name. Although it may not have been apparent in previous comments regarding usernames, it is definately better not to ] new users ]<sup>See ] or ]</sup> 00:16, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Repeating a note added several topics up, it's best to "subst:" the username templates:
:'''{{subst:]|'''''reason for objection'''''}}'''
:'''{{subst:]}}
:'''{{subst:]}}'''


:Still waitin on those examples, btw. ] (]) 19:27, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
Subst'ing lets the auto-signature feature work right, and makes the message text (rather than just the template tag) visible in edit mode so the user can reply point by point.
::I've ] you an example of the bias caused by seeing the signature, and you ] that you encounter the same problem. What more do you want? Names and dates, like "Here's a link to an RFC where I chose not to participate because the OP has such a bad reputation, and as proof of the bad reputation, here's the ANI discussion where they earned a TBAN"? If so, sorry: I'm not really interested in engaging in gossip about individuals. ] (]) 19:30, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
:::Then I am not interested in your theorizing, fair's fair. ] (]) 19:35, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
::::You've ] that {{xt|Every RFC...in my area}} has you reacting to the reputation of the signing editor and your own past experiences with the signing editor. I wouldn't call your personal lived experiences to be "my theorizing". ] (]) 17:29, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::I would, tho. ] (]) 17:33, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
:The argument about Arabic or Hebrew usernames is still unconvincing. Does this mean we should hide editors’ names when they edit so that people don’t perceive it in a biased way? Does this mean we should hide usernames in discussions so that editors don’t also perceive their opinions in a biased way? Why do we give an RFC special treatment? ] (]) 19:41, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
::Yes, we do allow editors to hide their usernames when they edit so that people don’t perceive it in a biased way. See ]. ] (]) 15:36, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
:::Legitimate uses requires not crossing the streams. If an editor has a bias on something, and an edit history with that bias, and they use an alt account to hide from that known bias, that is not a legitimate alt account, but is pretending to be someone they are not. A SOCK violation. ] (]) 06:12, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
:“Have to waste seconds” is offensive. It takes much more than seconds, and worse, it derails your thinking. ] (]) 06:05, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
:“Some RFCs are written by more than one person …”. A multi-signed document has to be signed by each signatory, normal and standard. Suggesting that one sign for the others is a weird distraction. On important matters, three admins may be called up to close a discussion, and they do this by each signing the closing statement. At RfA, the multiple nominators each sign separately. ] (]) 06:08, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
:“Unsigned RFCs promote fairness”. No, not really, they hide the bias. The answer to concerns of unfairness, or unfair bias, is transparency. Declare the bias. Name the authors, and any other contributors, and declare any bias. ] (]) 06:10, 17 December 2024 (UTC)


This is just an info page, I think we should just amend this statement "Sign the statement with either <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki> (name, time and date) or <nowiki>~~~~~</nowiki> (just the time and date)." so as to clarify that it is usual to give the name version unless there is some good reason not to, which reason should be given somewhere. ] (]) 20:04, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
Filling in the "reason for objection" lets you specify just what the problem is, for instance "I think this name too closely resembles the obscene word 'xxxx' in the 'yyyy' language." ] 22:25, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


:I think that both parts of this suggestion (i.e., telling people that it's usual to sign the username and adding an additional rule to post an explicit justification for not making the popular choice) are ]. ] (]) 15:40, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
== Need family of notification templates? ==
::It's just an info page. ] (]) 15:44, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
:::So? We don't need instruction creep on info pages, either. ] (]) 17:24, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
::::Info is not instruction. ] (]) 17:29, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::Telling editors that they should {{xt|give the name version unless there is some good reason not to, which reason should be given somewhere}} is instruction, not info. ] (]) 17:30, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::It's info, y'know, cos it's an info page. ] (]) 17:33, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::::I think you are reading too much into the label at the top of the page. ] (]) 17:49, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::::No, just getting ready for the RFC is all. ] (]) 18:01, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
I’ve opened several RfCs that were signed with just a timestamp, and no one’s made a fuss about it. Since both the ] and this one were triggered by BilledMammal not signing his RfCs with his username, if he is creating non-neutral or problematic RfCs to the point where he should be required to sign with his username for purposes of accountability or transparency, then there’s a more significant issue at play here than simply whether or not the RfC is signed with a username. ] (]) 23:49, 12 November 2024 (UTC)


:There's also this handy userscript called ] that allows editors to click on the timestamp of a comment and it'll bring them directly to the diff of the comment. ] (]) 23:54, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
It seems that the RfC process draws many comments on highly controversial and politically sensitive issues, but doesn't function as well on specialized topics that only concern a small number of editors. There are too few comments to arrive at anything like closure. It is understandable that many editors would prefer not to get involved, but it also seems that some editors don't get the word about an RfC concerning an article or incident of interest.
::That’s some technical skill required to uncover what should be easy, making discovering the anonymous author easy for some and hard for others. ] (]) 06:15, 17 December 2024 (UTC)


== RfCs about ] ==
Would it be wise to put together a family of notification templates that can be placed on article or user talk pages? I have in mind something like the ]. Let me know if there already are such templates, and I'll put links to them at the bottom of the main RfC pages.


There's an ongoing discussion here: ] ] (]) 11:38, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
This might help the concern expressed at various places on this talk page that many RfCs don't come to closure. --] 22:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


== RFC on signing RFCs ==
:Well, I may not have seen all the types of RFC there are or have been, but I think that two major types remaining are article content and user conduct. I can work on templates for these that parallel the three username-topic templates mentioned above.... ] 22:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
{{atop
| result = There seems to be general consensus against any change. {{nac}} ] (]) 21:40, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
}}


<!-- ] 19:01, 18 December 2024 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1734548467}}
::Thanks Ben, I look forward to seeing what you work up. I know that for user conduct it might be appropriate to have a template for the affected article talk pages as well as for the affected user(s) talk pages. I haven't considered article content RfC's much, but I imagine similar considerations apply. --] 22:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


Should the words "or <nowiki>~~~~~</nowiki> (just the time and date)" be removed from statement 5 of ]?
:::] entries '''link to''' the article talk pages (and ideally the specific sections) where the discussions actually take place.
:::
:::Since the RFC/USER itself should give diffs or section links as evidence, and more may be added during the discussion, I think it would be more practical to just advise the user of the RFC, with links to the ] entries list and the <font color="blue">Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/''USERNAME''</font> discussion. The evidence itself shouldn't have to be repeated in this notification. Let's make the bad news clear and polite, but <u>succinct</u>.
:::
:::That said, please check out the new templates as their links turn blue:
:::
::::'''{{subst:]|'''''article name'''''|'''''nature of concern'''''}}'''
::::'''{{subst:]|'''''article name'''''}}
::::'''{{subst:]|'''''article name'''''|'''''outcome of RFC'''''}}'''
:::
::::'''{{subst:]|'''''nature of concern'''''}}'''
::::'''{{subst:]}}
::::'''{{subst:]|'''''outcome of RFC'''''}}'''
:::
:::Please consider the original versions to be "first drafts", since I might not have thought to provide all the information needed, or optional parameters to include other info that may only sometimes be required. I expect these will need revision, and I would cheerfully welcome suggestions or helpful edits. Thanks! ] 04:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


] (]) 18:18, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
:::They're all up now, and fully functional, as far as my poor tired brain can determine. Please check them out and give me feedback, or make whatever fixes or tweaks seem appropriate. But do please remember to "subst:" them and include any required parameters (like article names), or they can't work right. Thanks! ] 08:39, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


===Survey===
== Should a predicted conflict be listed here? ==
* '''Yes''' The vast majority of RFCs are signed and there does not appear to be a valid reason for not signing. It has been suggested that a signature may induce bias in responses but there is no evidence for this. It has further been suggested that an RFC may be workshopped and therefore the creation of more than one editor, however the editor posting the RFC can simply indicate the location of the RFCBefore to clarify matters.] (]) 18:19, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
* '''No''', for ]. The reasons to not require an RFC question to end with one person's username are much stronger than the other reasons. The username is not required for any purpose (the bot looks for the date, but not a username). {{pb}}For background, there are now about 10 RFCs are signed with a username for every 1 RFC without it. Someone complains about an RFC that lists the username only in the page history, but not at ] every year or two. As far as I can remember, every single complaint, including the most recent, involved some sort of political hot button. The most recent complaint is about an RFC related to the ], and I frankly couldn't fault other editors if they cynically wondered whether the real desire is to know whether the person who started that RFC is Jewish. (The complainant has already said that the RFC question complies with ].) We have a number of trans editors whose usernames indicate that they are out and proud, or their ]s use the colors or emojis that are associated with the ]. If one of them felt it was necessary to start an RFC, then I see no reason for us to require them to put their username, and therefore to disclose their trans identity, at the end of the question. The questions are supposed to be impersonal and neutral enough that the identity of the person starting the question is unimportant. Also, note that RFCs are sometimes posted on behalf of a group (or an individual who isn't sure how to start an RFC), so adding a username would be misleading. ] (]) 18:34, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
*: You should strike your "I frankly couldn't fault..." sentence as it is really offensive. You have been here long enough to know that casting aspersions like that is not allowed. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 08:28, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
* '''No''', for the reasons in "WAID's No Box" in the previous subsection. I don't sign my RFC questions -- I just timestamp them, then add a "(as RFC initiator)" or "(as proposer)" to my !vote. It's much fairer that way. I ''know'' that seeing my name at the end of an RFC question will influence the response. There are also other situations, as detailed in the "No Box" above, e.g. when the person who posts the RFC isn't really the "author" of the RFC, or when there are multiple RFC initiators. All in all, I really don't see the benefit in requiring signatures after the RFC question -- I really think it's better to ''forbid'' it, in fact. RFCs should be decided on their merits; who initiated it is irrelevant. ] (]) 18:44, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
*:I can go along with forbidding altogether as well. ] (]) 18:49, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
*:I don't understand how an unsigned RfC followed by a !vote "as proposer" could influence others less than a signed RfC. The !vote is where you express your opinion and by implication how you wish other people will vote; people who hate you are now much better informed on how to vote against you. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 12:46, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
*::The vote doesn't show on FRS or at WP:RFC. Clicking/scrolling is a real discouragement on the internet. ] (]) 13:45, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
*:::: I would support changing the mechanism so that signatures don't appear at all in FRS or WP:RFC. Whether they are signed or not. Then people who use those services to watch for interesting RfCs will decide only according to the topic whether to visit the actual RfC. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 03:31, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
*:::::Unless there's a different FRS page I don't know about, the ] talk page notifications don't show the RfC questions at all (example: ). ] (]) 13:13, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
*::::::You are correct. The RFC questions are shown only on the central pages (e.g., ]) and at the discussion themselves. The FRS messages provide only a link. ] (]) 14:29, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
*:::Also, some editors start RFCs and do not immediately post their own views (or at all). ] (]) 19:59, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
*:To me I would support this option as a reasonable middle ground solution, tackling a bit both concerns of the supposed potential of prejudice against the opener, and of lack of transparency. ] (]) 18:55, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
*:Who initiated it is never irrelevant, and is often important to discover some nefarious intent hidden behind a bland looking proposal. ] (]) 06:17, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
* '''No''', RFCs should be as little about individual editors as possible. Unsigned RFCs won’t stop the most battlegroundy from checking history, but I think it would curb less conscious predispositions. <span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧁</span>]<span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧂</span> 08:42, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
*'''No''', signing an RfC makes it personal and a requester of comments should be able to present it as not a personal request. ] (]) 22:42, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
*'''No''' as per WAID and in particular because of the tribalism that is prevalent around many of the most contentious arguments that prompt RFCs. If it really matters, and someone truly wishes to go spelunking through the edit history, so be it, but for the average wikipedian, not having a signature should be fine; they don't need to know the person who proposed an RFC to try to decide on the matter at hand. ] (]) 03:36, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
*'''Yes''' it shouldn't be hidden, just as much as an edit summary shouldn't have the username hidden. But as for a middle ground solution, I am ready to support Levivich's suggestion, which tackles a bit both concerns, that of supposed potential for prejudice, as well as the potential for lack of transparency. ] (]) 18:58, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
*'''No''', not necessary, and wouldn't improve Misplaced Pages. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 05:00, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
*'''Yes''', because none of the reasons for not using one's username outweigh the value of doing so (transparency being chief among them). Levivich's compromise is also a good one. ] (]) 19:51, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
*'''No''' largely per the arguments above (with no preference for/against a full ban on signatures). If an RfC is bad enough to require sanctions, it takes less than a minute to look up the creator, and if it doesn’t, the creator likely doesn’t matter. ] (]) 12:11, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
* '''Yes'''. All talk page posts should be signed. Anonymous RfC introductions are weird and stupid. They make it hard to work out what is going on. They make it look like not a talk page, which is disconcerting. Multi-section anonymous RfC starts are bamboozling, a barrier to participating. —] (]) 06:03, 17 December 2024 (UTC)


===Discussion===
I'd like to have some community input for at ], but since there's not an active conflict at the moment, I'm not sure if RfC is the best place to list my request. Since the issue described there is almost certain to come up at some point, I thought it may be wise to have some sort of precedent set. Should it go here or elsewhere? <b>]</b> 01:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
], the bot just pulled the tag. It's been 20 days since the last comment. Do you want to write the closing summary yourself, or do you want to list this at ]? (See the FAQ at the top of this page and #4 in ] if you weren't aware that you have that option.) ] (]) 01:23, 14 December 2024 (UTC)


:As well as signing my RFCs I don't usually close RFCs I am involved in but thanks for the unnecessary ping anyway. ] (]) 10:18, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}


== ArbCom limits on RFC comments ==
==]==


Just FYI:
As this user has been editting for awhile, I'm not certain that a username RfC is appropriate, but I forward his contributions as an example of one principle I've been advocating: partisan usernames ''nearly invariably'' signify partisan intent. By allowing them to register, we mislead them into believing that it is acceptable to view Misplaced Pages as a battleground.] 01:46, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


Within the ] subject area, ] has all editors to a maximum of 1,000 words per RFC for the next two years (until 15 November 2027).
:But, unless a nation is specified, how is this partisan? --] (]) 16:18, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


I believe this will have no effect on >90% of participants in those RFCs, but it will affect some people. ] (]) 07:18, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
:Slippery slope. "Nationalist" isn't exactly a charged term. ] 18:14, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


== How long is the result of an RFC valid for? ==
:You could bring it up at ], but I am almost sure it would be allowed, I don't see how it can be partisan if it does not mention a nation. ]<small> <sup>(Need help? ])</sup></small> 18:16, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
::I believe that non-neutral usernames usually wind up disallowed, at the end of the discussion -- the question, then, would be whether a particular name displays an inherent bias. Example, "sucker" might be allowed, but "Foo is a sucker," probably not. <small>(well, "sucker" might not be allowed anyway, I dunno, but it's the first example coming to mind... throw poor Luna a bone?)</small>&ndash; <span style="font-family: Garamond">] (])</span> 20:02, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


If an RfC is closed, how long is the result valid for? 6 months? A year? In other words, how long until an editor can either contest it or raise a similar issue again? ] (]) 01:32, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
== Questions ==


:until you can find a reason to argue that consensus has changed or will change somehow. maybe a new piece of evidence, or the previous RFC had only local consensus, or nobody is around who will raise the fact that a previous RFC answered it already ] (]) 01:40, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
:''I've moved that section where more applicable (])'' ]] 22:30, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
::"Local consensus" is one of those complicated phrases on wiki. The policy means "a consensus that conflicts with policies and guidelines". But some editors use it to indicate "only a few people participated in the discussion" or even "those editors disagreed with me, so they must be wrong".
::As a widely advertised discussion, an RFC should be assumed to represent the community's view at that time.
::@], there is no set rule against immediately contesting a decision (assuming a consensus formed). However, if you run the same question less than six months later, you can expect someone to complain. ] (]) 02:10, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
:::That's understandable. ] (]) 02:41, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 21:40, 24 December 2024

This is the talk page for discussing Requests for comment and anything related to its purposes and tasks.
Shortcut
NOTE: This talk page is not the place to post notices of disputes or requests for comment, or to ask questions about changes you would like to make to individual articles. Please follow Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment.
Are you having trouble getting your RfC listed? Please make sure the bot hasn't been turned off. If the bot hasn't run in the last few hours, then please alert the bot's owner. If the bot is apparently running, then the problem is almost certainly with the template formatting. To get help with formatting the template correctly, please leave a message, including the name of the page where you want to start the RfC, at the bottom of this page.
? view · edit Frequently asked questions
The RfC question isn't neutral!
Wikipedians are rarely swayed by a non-neutral question. They've got their own minds and they'll come to their own conclusions. A non-neutral question might be a good reason to fix the question, but it is not grounds to halt or re-start the RfC. If you believe that a question is non-neutral, you are better off simply participating in the RfC to present arguments about the underlying dispute. An additional comment about the question's neutrality may or may not be appropriate, depending on its relevance to those arguments.
The RFC question is not brief. Can I fix it?
The "question" is the part that shows up on the RFC listing pages (example of listing page). If the RFC question itself is substantially longer than all the others and you are not appearing in the role of the loyal opposition, then you can copy a small part the original question plus the original timestamp (not usually the name) to the top or write a simplified question. If, however, the person who started the RFC discussion might consider you to be part of the dispute, you should ask someone else to adjust it (e.g., by asking the person who started the RFC to shorten it or by posting a note on the RFC talk page).
I don't like any of the options I've been asked to vote for.
RFCs aren't votes. You can suggest a compromise or an option that others haven't considered, exactly like you would in any other talk page discussion.
How long should an RFC last?
As long as all of the participants need, and no longer. If you started an RFC, and you believe other editors will not agree to your proposal, then you are permitted to admit defeat and withdraw it at any time. However, editors who believe their side is winning are advised to not even mention the possibility of ending an RFC early during the first week.
Is the result of an RFC binding?
Not inherently, but an RFC is usually an effective way of determining the consensus of editors, which is binding. The formal closing summary of an RfC is generally considered to be a summary of the current consensus, although consensus can change over time.
Aren't all RFCs supposed to get a formal closing summary?
No. Most of the time, the result is clear to all of the participants, and editors should not waste the community's time by asking someone else to officially write down what everyone already knows. Only a minority of RFCs get closing summary statements.
Can the person who started the RFC, or another involved editor, write a summary of the discussion?
Yes. In particular, when a proposal is soundly rejected, proponents are encouraged to accept defeat with grace. However, if the outcome could plausibly be disputed, then involved editors (on all sides of a dispute) are encouraged to let someone else write a summary.
This project page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconDispute Resolution (inactive)
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Dispute Resolution, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Dispute ResolutionWikipedia:WikiProject Dispute ResolutionTemplate:WikiProject Dispute ResolutionDispute Resolution

Archives
  1. Feb 2004
  2. Feb 2004–May 2005
  3. May 2005–Sep 2005
  4. Sep 2005–Oct 2005
  5. Oct 2005–May 2006
  6. May 2006–Dec 2006
  7. Jan 2007–Jun 2007
  8. July 2007–Dec 2007
  9. Jan 2008-Feb 2009
  10. Feb 2009-Feb 2010
  11. Feb 2010-January 2012
  12. January 2012—May 2013
  13. May 2013–August 2015
  14. August 2015–October 2016
  15. October 2016–June 2018
  16. June 2018–June 2020
  17. June 2020–April 2021
  18. April 2021–November 2021
  19. November 2021–May 2023
  20. June 2023–
  21. (future)

This page has archives. Sections older than 40 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

RFC signer

What is the current consensus on whether an RFC should be signed with the filer's username? I see there was a discussion about this in 2018, where most agreed that the filer should be identified. Asking this question after an RFC was left unsigned here, which although is in line with the RFC information page, is a rare occurrence and obscures accountability whenever it is required. I think the RFC information should be changed to reflect the consensus of editors. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:19, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

There was a discussion on this a couple of months ago. The opinion seemed to be that it is acceptable, even sometimes beneficial for them not to be signed, as it let’s editors come to an opinion on the question without being prejudiced by their opinion of the opener.
It’s not all that rare; about 9% are unsigned. BilledMammal (talk) 10:35, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
9% is rare. They can avoid prejudice by having the statement filed by an admin for example, not necessarily by having an empty signature. I think after all these discussions an RFC on the way to open an RFC is needed. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:50, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
Given page history is publicly accessible, I don’t understand the line "obscures accountability" - if you want to know, can’t you just check the history? BilledMammal (talk) 10:52, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
If the RfC question is posed in a perfectly neutral way, it shouldn't be possible to determine the opinion of the opener from the question. The problem comes when a non-neutral question is unsigned, not when a neutral question is unsigned. Requiring a signature will encourage the opener to be more careful in drafting the question. I could imagine an exception for committee-drafted RfCs like we have on VPP sometimes, but otherwise I think that everything that appears on any type of discussion page should indicate who put it there. An RfC on this would be interesting, but I think VPP would be the right place and it would need a discussion first. Zero 11:11, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
This assumption is false. Some editors are well-known for holding certain viewpoints (e.g., pro-infobox, anti-pseudoscience), and as a result, merely adding our names makes it possible to determine the opinion of the opener. The username can also act like waving the proverbial red flag in front of a bull: "Oh, him. I'd better go vote against whatever that is" or "My friend started an RFC. I should go help her win". WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:36, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
@WhatamIdoing: I know this argument and I don't believe it. There is no evidence that any appreciable number of votes occur other than on account of the opinion/POV of the voter. The argument also ignores existing votes. In most cases the originator votes, so if someone was to choose whether/how to vote on account of their opinion of the originator, the originator's vote is much more likely to be the motive. Zero 00:53, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
We could argue all day about how many is an "appreciable number", but we seem to agree that it actually does happen sometimes. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:22, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
That is why I mentioned obscure not prevent. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:14, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
All of that was mentioned in the prior discussion. Another argument against signing an RfC is just a philosophical one: The request isn't personal, so there's nothing to sign. The requester isn't a secret, it's just not part of the request. It's like the reason that you don't sign a Misplaced Pages article when you write one. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 18:47, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
90% + of people who do RFCs sign them. Selfstudier (talk) 19:04, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
Articles are not signed because they are joint work and public-facing. Also because wiki usernames are meaningless to the readership. Also because articles would be a horrible mess after many edits. None of those reasons apply to RfCs, so the analogy fails. Zero 00:54, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
Fair enough. There are enough other reasons not to sign a Misplaced Pages article that I should not have used it as an analogy. For me, the main reason not to sign a Misplaced Pages article is that it isn't personal, like some people believe about their RfC requests. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 18:36, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
Just woke up one day and thought I will make a non personal RFC about something I don't care about, right? Selfstudier (talk) 18:43, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
RFCs can be joint work, too.
I think the case you need to make is not "Under ordinary circumstances, signing an RFC is normal and desirable" but "I can hereby prove that under no circumstance whatsoever is it appropriate for an RFC question to be displayed in Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/All without at least the wrong username". Because that's what is suggested above: That it would be preferable to have the RFC misleadingly signed by someone who is not actually asking the RFC question ("having the statement filed by an admin for example") than to have it unsigned. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:33, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
Exceptions are fine, we can note those. Otherwise, simply follow common practice and sign, no-one will complain about that. Selfstudier (talk) 16:38, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
The problem isn't that nobody complains about the most common practice. The problem is that sometimes the most common practice results in more harm than benefit. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:44, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
Apparently that's only in theory. Do you have some examples of such harm? Selfstudier (talk) 16:46, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
Sure: I've personally felt drawn to oppose whatever is being recommended because I recognize the username in the question. I'd like to think that I'm enough of an adult to consider the question fairly or to walk away, but I'm also enough of an adult to recognize that an RFC signed by User:TeeteringOnTBAN is not going to get the same response as the same one from User:Unknown or User:Friend. How about you? Are you a paragon of virtue who is never biased by reputation and past experiences with people, or maybe you just have a hard time remembering names? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:53, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
Every RFC is like that in my area. Selfstudier (talk) 19:06, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
Looking at the precipitating event:
WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:43, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
Unnecessary, we have lots of RFCs without any problems, it's just the unsigned ones we complain about. Selfstudier (talk) 16:47, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
Wrong, I never complain about unsigned RfCs (undated RfCs I will add a timestamp to), but I often complain about RfCs that are failing in some other way; sometimes I fix these up because I suspect that the filer might not understand my explanation. Examples: Special:Diff/1256748178; Special:Diff/1256578999; Special:Diff/1256555117; Special:Diff/1256426747. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:31, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
That's you, we're complaining here ;) We have complained about it before, now we havin another go. Selfstudier (talk) 18:35, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
Maybe we'll have a (signed) RFC about it. Selfstudier (talk) 18:35, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
Not sure what you are trying to ask about but I won’t be trying to remember details about more than half a year old incident and not sure what is meant with precipitating incident. Accountability as in knowing who to ask when the statement is not neutral/not representative of the discussion/etc. As for the argument that identity of opener shouldn’t affect discussion, this would be also true for everything, including even edits or discussions, so I can’t see why RfC should be a unique exception. Makeandtoss (talk) 19:17, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
Are you claiming that the RFC question is non-neutral? Here's a copy of the entire question:
"Should the following sentence be added to the lede?

In its investigation on 20 October 2023, Forensic Architecture concluded the blast was the result of a munition fired from the direction of Israel

"
If not, then what kind of "accountability" are you needing in this RFC? Or are you only saying that, hypothetically, if someone did need to have a discussion about an RFC question, then it would be unfortunate if you had to waste 30 seconds looking up the username first? I wonder how long it would take if the OP had taken you up on your advice to have an admin sign it instead. Then you'd start with the wrong user. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:27, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
Wouldna took any time at all if they signed it like everybody else does. Selfstudier (talk) 19:34, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
I genuinely have no idea what you are trying to get at. I clearly said if it is not neutral, I did not see that any specific question has been non-neutral. 30 seconds is a long time, it should be clear without having to dig anywhere. Makeandtoss (talk) 19:38, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
So you think there's nothing wrong with the question, and therefore you have no need to contact the editor over it. Why exactly do you immediately need to know the editor's name again? Just personal preference? A desire for an unnecessary level of uniformity? WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:38, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
A natural desire for transparency and accountability if necessary. Makeandtoss (talk) 20:28, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
Transparency and accountability are provided by the page history. Desiring these things does not explain why you believe the username need to be immediately visible, without clicking on the page history. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:25, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
The answer is obvious: Make wants to judge the RFC question by who wrote it. This is the exact reason I think RFCs should not be signed: to stop, or at least slow down, people from doing exactly that. Levivich (talk) 18:51, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
As someone keeps pointing out tho, it is kinda easy to see who put it up. Selfstudier (talk) 18:52, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
If you're on the RfC page, you can look at the page history, sure. But many people won't have had the RfC's page on their watchlists, they will arrive by some other means. Perhaps they habitually check WP:RFC/BIO etc. and from those, pick out RfCs that they are interested in. What they see on those pages is the brief and neutral statement, terminating with a timestamp. I don't think that the lack of an optional signature will make these people say "I won't bother with that one because it's unsigned". But maybe they'll think "it's signed by my nemesis, so I'll go over there and oppose it, whatever the arguments in favour might be". --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:10, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
...as the internet has taught us, having to click (or scroll) is enough to dissuade like 90% of people. Levivich (talk) 20:49, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
Did you seriously write "30 seconds is a long time"? 😂 Levivich (talk) 18:50, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
Yes, (no pun intended) and it was not sarcastic; editors should not have to spend any amount of time looking for what in my opinion should be naturally presented.
And no, the aim here is not to judge the RFC question by who wrote it; most RFC questions I have seen are in the form of "should X contain Y?" I can't see how this question can be judged based on the RFC's opener.
All in all, seeing an RFC without the opener's username does not feel natural to me, just as an edit summary without one wouldn't (in this case as well it could be argued that hiding it would protect the content from supposed prejudice). Makeandtoss (talk) 18:50, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Selfstudier, I think these are the reasons for both sides. Have I missed any that seem important to you?

Should we require all RFCs to be signed with a username?
Yes, we should require this. No, we should not require this.
  • If an RFC is unsigned, and I want to know who started it, I have to waste seconds looking in the page history.
  • RFC used to ban signatures, but since editors were given a choice, signing has become the most popular choice (10 out of 11 RFCs).
  • If someone wants to start and RFC without their name appearing at the top of the section, they can ask an admin to sign the admin's username instead.
  • We could also make a list of exceptions but still officially require signing your name.
  • Some RFCs are written by more than one person, so signing one name is inaccurate. Signing with someone else's name would be even worse, because the page history would not have an accurate name.
  • Unsigned RFCs promote fairness. Without knowing who started the RFC, the responses will not be biased by wanting to support a friend or reacting to the reputation of the editor who started it.
  • Not including a username is important for some subjects, when an individual's signature might be seen as disclosing the editor's view on the subject. For example, if the username is either in the Hebrew or the Arabic alphabet, and the article is about Palestinians, then editors will assume that the person starting the RFC is biased.

WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:23, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Still waitin on those examples, btw. Selfstudier (talk) 19:27, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
I've given you an example of the bias caused by seeing the signature, and you admit that you encounter the same problem. What more do you want? Names and dates, like "Here's a link to an RFC where I chose not to participate because the OP has such a bad reputation, and as proof of the bad reputation, here's the ANI discussion where they earned a TBAN"? If so, sorry: I'm not really interested in engaging in gossip about individuals. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:30, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
Then I am not interested in your theorizing, fair's fair. Selfstudier (talk) 19:35, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
You've already agreed that Every RFC...in my area has you reacting to the reputation of the signing editor and your own past experiences with the signing editor. I wouldn't call your personal lived experiences to be "my theorizing". WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:29, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
I would, tho. Selfstudier (talk) 17:33, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
The argument about Arabic or Hebrew usernames is still unconvincing. Does this mean we should hide editors’ names when they edit so that people don’t perceive it in a biased way? Does this mean we should hide usernames in discussions so that editors don’t also perceive their opinions in a biased way? Why do we give an RFC special treatment? Makeandtoss (talk) 19:41, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
Yes, we do allow editors to hide their usernames when they edit so that people don’t perceive it in a biased way. See Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppetry#Legitimate uses. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:36, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
Legitimate uses requires not crossing the streams. If an editor has a bias on something, and an edit history with that bias, and they use an alt account to hide from that known bias, that is not a legitimate alt account, but is pretending to be someone they are not. A SOCK violation. SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:12, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
“Have to waste seconds” is offensive. It takes much more than seconds, and worse, it derails your thinking. SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:05, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
“Some RFCs are written by more than one person …”. A multi-signed document has to be signed by each signatory, normal and standard. Suggesting that one sign for the others is a weird distraction. On important matters, three admins may be called up to close a discussion, and they do this by each signing the closing statement. At RfA, the multiple nominators each sign separately. SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:08, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
“Unsigned RFCs promote fairness”. No, not really, they hide the bias. The answer to concerns of unfairness, or unfair bias, is transparency. Declare the bias. Name the authors, and any other contributors, and declare any bias. SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:10, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

This is just an info page, I think we should just amend this statement "Sign the statement with either ~~~~ (name, time and date) or ~~~~~ (just the time and date)." so as to clarify that it is usual to give the name version unless there is some good reason not to, which reason should be given somewhere. Selfstudier (talk) 20:04, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

I think that both parts of this suggestion (i.e., telling people that it's usual to sign the username and adding an additional rule to post an explicit justification for not making the popular choice) are WP:CREEPY. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:40, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
It's just an info page. Selfstudier (talk) 15:44, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
So? We don't need instruction creep on info pages, either. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:24, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
Info is not instruction. Selfstudier (talk) 17:29, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
Telling editors that they should give the name version unless there is some good reason not to, which reason should be given somewhere is instruction, not info. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:30, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
It's info, y'know, cos it's an info page. Selfstudier (talk) 17:33, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
I think you are reading too much into the label at the top of the page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:49, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
No, just getting ready for the RFC is all. Selfstudier (talk) 18:01, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

I’ve opened several RfCs that were signed with just a timestamp, and no one’s made a fuss about it. Since both the previous discussion and this one were triggered by BilledMammal not signing his RfCs with his username, if he is creating non-neutral or problematic RfCs to the point where he should be required to sign with his username for purposes of accountability or transparency, then there’s a more significant issue at play here than simply whether or not the RfC is signed with a username. Some1 (talk) 23:49, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

There's also this handy userscript called User:Evad37/TimestampDiffs.js that allows editors to click on the timestamp of a comment and it'll bring them directly to the diff of the comment. Some1 (talk) 23:54, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
That’s some technical skill required to uncover what should be easy, making discovering the anonymous author easy for some and hard for others. SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:15, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

RfCs about Misplaced Pages:Vital articles

There's an ongoing discussion here: Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles#RfCs_for_nominating_articles Bogazicili (talk) 11:38, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

RFC on signing RFCs

There seems to be general consensus against any change. (non-admin closure) Soni (talk) 21:40, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Should the words "or ~~~~~ (just the time and date)" be removed from statement 5 of Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment#Creating an RfC?

RFCBefore Selfstudier (talk) 18:18, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Survey

  • Yes The vast majority of RFCs are signed and there does not appear to be a valid reason for not signing. It has been suggested that a signature may induce bias in responses but there is no evidence for this. It has further been suggested that an RFC may be workshopped and therefore the creation of more than one editor, however the editor posting the RFC can simply indicate the location of the RFCBefore to clarify matters.Selfstudier (talk) 18:19, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
  • No, for the reasons given above. The reasons to not require an RFC question to end with one person's username are much stronger than the other reasons. The username is not required for any purpose (the bot looks for the date, but not a username). For background, there are now about 10 RFCs are signed with a username for every 1 RFC without it. Someone complains about an RFC that lists the username only in the page history, but not at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/All every year or two. As far as I can remember, every single complaint, including the most recent, involved some sort of political hot button. The most recent complaint is about an RFC related to the Israel–Hamas war, and I frankly couldn't fault other editors if they cynically wondered whether the real desire is to know whether the person who started that RFC is Jewish. (The complainant has already said that the RFC question complies with WP:RFCNEUTRAL.) We have a number of trans editors whose usernames indicate that they are out and proud, or their WP:CUSTOMSIGs use the colors or emojis that are associated with the Transgender flag. If one of them felt it was necessary to start an RFC, then I see no reason for us to require them to put their username, and therefore to disclose their trans identity, at the end of the question. The questions are supposed to be impersonal and neutral enough that the identity of the person starting the question is unimportant. Also, note that RFCs are sometimes posted on behalf of a group (or an individual who isn't sure how to start an RFC), so adding a username would be misleading. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:34, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
    You should strike your "I frankly couldn't fault..." sentence as it is really offensive. You have been here long enough to know that casting aspersions like that is not allowed. Zero 08:28, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
  • No, for the reasons in "WAID's No Box" in the previous subsection. I don't sign my RFC questions -- I just timestamp them, then add a "(as RFC initiator)" or "(as proposer)" to my !vote. It's much fairer that way. I know that seeing my name at the end of an RFC question will influence the response. There are also other situations, as detailed in the "No Box" above, e.g. when the person who posts the RFC isn't really the "author" of the RFC, or when there are multiple RFC initiators. All in all, I really don't see the benefit in requiring signatures after the RFC question -- I really think it's better to forbid it, in fact. RFCs should be decided on their merits; who initiated it is irrelevant. Levivich (talk) 18:44, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
    I can go along with forbidding altogether as well. Selfstudier (talk) 18:49, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
    I don't understand how an unsigned RfC followed by a !vote "as proposer" could influence others less than a signed RfC. The !vote is where you express your opinion and by implication how you wish other people will vote; people who hate you are now much better informed on how to vote against you. Zero 12:46, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
    The vote doesn't show on FRS or at WP:RFC. Clicking/scrolling is a real discouragement on the internet. Levivich (talk) 13:45, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
    I would support changing the mechanism so that signatures don't appear at all in FRS or WP:RFC. Whether they are signed or not. Then people who use those services to watch for interesting RfCs will decide only according to the topic whether to visit the actual RfC. Zero 03:31, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
    Unless there's a different FRS page I don't know about, the Misplaced Pages:Feedback request service talk page notifications don't show the RfC questions at all (example: ). Some1 (talk) 13:13, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
    You are correct. The RFC questions are shown only on the central pages (e.g., Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/All) and at the discussion themselves. The FRS messages provide only a link. WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:29, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
    Also, some editors start RFCs and do not immediately post their own views (or at all). WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:59, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
    To me I would support this option as a reasonable middle ground solution, tackling a bit both concerns of the supposed potential of prejudice against the opener, and of lack of transparency. Makeandtoss (talk) 18:55, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
    Who initiated it is never irrelevant, and is often important to discover some nefarious intent hidden behind a bland looking proposal. SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:17, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
  • No, RFCs should be as little about individual editors as possible. Unsigned RFCs won’t stop the most battlegroundy from checking history, but I think it would curb less conscious predispositions. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 08:42, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
  • No, signing an RfC makes it personal and a requester of comments should be able to present it as not a personal request. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 22:42, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
  • No as per WAID and in particular because of the tribalism that is prevalent around many of the most contentious arguments that prompt RFCs. If it really matters, and someone truly wishes to go spelunking through the edit history, so be it, but for the average wikipedian, not having a signature should be fine; they don't need to know the person who proposed an RFC to try to decide on the matter at hand. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 03:36, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Yes it shouldn't be hidden, just as much as an edit summary shouldn't have the username hidden. But as for a middle ground solution, I am ready to support Levivich's suggestion, which tackles a bit both concerns, that of supposed potential for prejudice, as well as the potential for lack of transparency. Makeandtoss (talk) 18:58, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
  • No, not necessary, and wouldn't improve Misplaced Pages. Andre🚐 05:00, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Yes, because none of the reasons for not using one's username outweigh the value of doing so (transparency being chief among them). Levivich's compromise is also a good one. Lewisguile (talk) 19:51, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
  • No largely per the arguments above (with no preference for/against a full ban on signatures). If an RfC is bad enough to require sanctions, it takes less than a minute to look up the creator, and if it doesn’t, the creator likely doesn’t matter. FortunateSons (talk) 12:11, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Yes. All talk page posts should be signed. Anonymous RfC introductions are weird and stupid. They make it hard to work out what is going on. They make it look like not a talk page, which is disconcerting. Multi-section anonymous RfC starts are bamboozling, a barrier to participating. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:03, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

Selfstudier, the bot just pulled the tag. It's been 20 days since the last comment. Do you want to write the closing summary yourself, or do you want to list this at Misplaced Pages:Closure requests? (See the FAQ at the top of this page and #4 in Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment#Reasons and ways to end RfCs if you weren't aware that you have that option.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:23, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

As well as signing my RFCs I don't usually close RFCs I am involved in but thanks for the unnecessary ping anyway. Selfstudier (talk) 10:18, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

ArbCom limits on RFC comments

Just FYI:

Within the WP:ARBPIA subject area, WP:ARBCOM has limited all editors to a maximum of 1,000 words per RFC for the next two years (until 15 November 2027).

I believe this will have no effect on >90% of participants in those RFCs, but it will affect some people. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:18, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

How long is the result of an RFC valid for?

If an RfC is closed, how long is the result valid for? 6 months? A year? In other words, how long until an editor can either contest it or raise a similar issue again? Plasticwonder (talk) 01:32, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

until you can find a reason to argue that consensus has changed or will change somehow. maybe a new piece of evidence, or the previous RFC had only local consensus, or nobody is around who will raise the fact that a previous RFC answered it already Bluethricecreamman (talk) 01:40, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
"Local consensus" is one of those complicated phrases on wiki. The policy means "a consensus that conflicts with policies and guidelines". But some editors use it to indicate "only a few people participated in the discussion" or even "those editors disagreed with me, so they must be wrong".
As a widely advertised discussion, an RFC should be assumed to represent the community's view at that time.
@Plasticwonder, there is no set rule against immediately contesting a decision (assuming a consensus formed). However, if you run the same question less than six months later, you can expect someone to complain. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:10, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
That's understandable. Plasticwonder (talk) 02:41, 21 December 2024 (UTC)