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 01:25, 15 June 2007 editLsi john (talk | contribs)6,364 edits →Unjustified deletion← Previous edit Latest revision as of 21:40, 24 December 2024 edit undoSoni (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers10,916 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–Dec 2006
|} |}


] (]) 19:23, 11 November 2024 (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)
===Section break===
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)
:Additionally, my new RfC has now been uncertified for two days, so I'd appreciate if someone could delete it. --] 15:58, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
::You're spending plenty of time campaigning for the removal or closure of RfCs against you, and yet you refuse to spend a couple of minutes explaining why you applied ? You're a terrible administrator if you can't or won't justify your actions. ] 18:02, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
:::If you would read the rules, and RfC that stands for two days with no certification is to be deleted. Just procedure. I'll also warn you one last time not to make personal attacks. --] 07:16, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
::::Where are the personal attacks? I'll ask you one more time to simply say why you applied the block under question, and how that related to ]. If you refuse to justify your actions, you're a terrible administrator. ] 11:22, 17 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:]}}'''

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.

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)

== Need family of notification templates? ==

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.

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.

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)

: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)

::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)

:::] 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)

:::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)

:] of the user-warnings project had suggested:''"Just my tuppence worth but maybe trying to group them with the prefix rfc, and all the templates titles should be in lowerecase."'' &nbsp; Okay. The long forms now also have lowercased shortcuts. Since the longstanding {{tl|UsernameBlocked}} already had shortcut {{tl|unb}}, I gave the others similar shortcuts (as close as I could get, since {{tl|ucr}} and {{tl|unc}} were already taken), and then also rfc-prefix forms with just three letters after the dash:

:::{{RFCtemplate}}

:That should save a bit of typing time. -- ] 08:19, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

::I've got no problem with using these for the simple "this rfc has closed notifications" (but they're only a sentence anyway so why have a template). Theres a worrying parallel here with civility templates and other such things - when used with established users, this impersonal lazy approach causes more problems than it solves - I think the same is true here. We've got people involved in content disputes or concerns over their conduct - often these people will be established users and the issues will be complex a require some diplomacy - is dropping these templates on there talk pages going to help matters? A more carefully crafted and pesonalised message that refers perhaps to the specific issues is what we owe wikipedians like this - it takes longer but its a better approach in my opinion. --] 12:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

:::Which is why I've said over and over that using these templates is optional, not mandatory, and that people are encouraged to write their own original text, though welcome to paraphrase from these templates if that helps. Note in ] above, the problem has been that some people have trouble finding the diplomatic words to make what is essentially a complaint come across in a friendly, non-confrontational, and soothing manner -- especially to newcomers, who don't know how things work around here and who therefore need extra explanation and a very gentle approach. Between old-timers, and especially between long-time colleagues, a short and even terse personal note may suffice... so they don't need any template at all, and are not the "target audience" for these. -- ] 03:19, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

::Thanks for all the effort Ben, but most of the templates miss my central concern. I was asking about a possible family of templates that could be used to notify interested parties who weren't personally involved in a controversy about an RfC concerning activities by a third party or on a page that they habitually edited. Those are the kind of people who could contribute to making the RfC process more effective.
::The only template in your group that addresses interested observers is articlediscussion; the similarly named conductdiscussion is aimed at the person whose conduct is being discussed, not at observers who might be able to comment on the effects of his activity. --] 22:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

:::Okay, but people who are '''not''' the subject of a conduct discussion probably don't need either the diplomatic language or the explanation of dispute-resolution options, mentorship, advocacy, etc. A brief note ''(<nowiki>"There's an RFC on ] at ], if you want to participate. -- ~~~~"</nowiki>)'' will neither hurt their feelings nor deny them information they need to save their accounts, since they're not the ones at risk. I can do a template for that if you like, I just never thought of templating something that short. Is there anything else you'd like it to say? Or any other sort of message you want templated? Please let me know. Thanks! -- ] 03:19, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

:::Steve, here's '''<nowiki>{{</nowiki>subst:]|'''''username'''''}}''' for you. Enjoy! -- ] 22:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

:::Having done some tinkering, I'm actually feeling rather proud of {{tl|ucn}} / {{tl|ConductNotice}}, after all. I built in a bit of functionality that makes it a little more than just a short text-printing macro. When someone's already been the subject of one or more previous RFCs, the new RFC is supposed to have a number appended to the name. RFC#1 may be "John Doe", but after that come "John Doe 2", "John Doe 3", and so forth, which would put the burden on you to look up the current RFC's number and add that to the notice. Originally I made this an optional parameter: '''<nowiki>{{</nowiki>subst:]|'''''John Doe'''''|'''<u>2</u>'''}}''', etc. But now, as long as the numbering is standard format (not in parentheses or Roman numerals or anything odd like that), and all the RFCs are still around to be counted, this template will look up the number for you and provide the correct link -- so all you have to provide is the username. &nbsp; <font size=-2> <wipes sweat from brow> </font> &nbsp; -- ] 04:12, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

:::Another new template: '''<nowiki>{{</nowiki>subst:]|'''''username'''''}}''' is to mention an RFC/NAME discussion to someone '''other''' than the named user, for instance to invite the blocking admin to discuss an existing username block. -- ] 23:11, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

== Should a predicted conflict be listed here? ==

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)


==]==

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)

:But, unless a nation is specified, how is this partisan? --] (]) 16:18, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

:Slippery slope. "Nationalist" isn't exactly a charged term. ] 18:14, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

: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)

== Questions ==

:''I've moved that section where more applicable (])'' ]] 22:30, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

== Archive not working ==

The automatic archive function seems not to be working since February 21. ] 00:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
*Yeah theres a bug in it, HighInBC's aware and trying to sort it ]<sup>See ] or ]</sup> 00:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

== Usernames as companies ==

We have had a fairly large number of users signing up with companies as their usernames. I just logged out and looked at the sign up page, and from what i saw, i dont see anything prohibitng such names there. I know that there is stuff in ], but i dont expect a new user to know that. Would it be possible to update the signup screen to let new people know that usernames that are the name of companies may be blocked? ] 20:08, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
:This has become an increasing issue as more and more people realize that they can attempt to use wikipedia for advertising. Probably 50% of the username blocks I do are for companies try to advertise. I think adding that might be a good idea. ] | ] 22:29, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
::What do we have to do to go about doing that? ] 00:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

This was added: . It might do to make it more explicit at the signup that Misplaced Pages is not a promotional service. —]→]&nbsp;&bull; 16:46, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

==Proposed category: Organizations and businesses==
There's a separate category for biographies, and sometimes organizations don't fit very neatly under one of the existing guidelines. I've seen several cases now in which a category like this would be useful. ] <small><sup>] ]</sup></small> 01:44, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
:That's mostly what "Economy and trade" is used for. It might be best to just rename it to "Economy, trade, and business" or something. —]→]&nbsp;&bull; 02:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Done: "Economy, trade, and companies". —]→]&nbsp;&bull; 16:50, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

== User name subpage ==

] states that on seeing a dubious username that could be misinterpreted or is borderline acceptable, the first stage is to contact the user and ask them if they will change their name. I have spotted a recent spate of usernames being immediately added to ] without any attempt to contact the user. Does anyone object if I start removing any submissions to RFCN where no attempt to contact the user has been made? ]&nbsp;] 16:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
:As long as it is not blatantly obvious block. I think this is a situation where good judgement is required. But, i dont have a problem with it. it is just like removing aiv reports without proper warnings. ] 16:08, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

:I think thats a good idea, if the username isn't a blatant failure of ] and hence not blocked on sight, an active effort should be made to contact the user to ask about their username, or at least notifying them of the ] ]<sup>See ] or ]</sup> 16:10, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

::There are 3 kinds of user names:

#Username is perfectly acceptable. Action to take based on name: None.
#Username is completely and clearly unacceptable (ie, contains trolling, foul language, hate speech, obvious impersonation). Action to take: Block.
#Username is unacceptable for less serious reasons (ie, resembles another user's name, too long, a company has the word Misplaced Pages or bot). Action to take: Ask the user to change their name. If no response: Then (and only then) submit to ].

::If you don't bother to contact the user whose future editing under that name is in the balance, you're exhibiting a rank ignorance of ]. ]&nbsp;] 16:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

:::I tend to agree. I've been removing quite a few names from AIV that seemed borderline (and some of them I couldn't even figure why they were unacceptable at all). The only ones I've been blocking are obvious harassment (XEditorIsAMoron), profanity/racial slurs in the name, etc. A ''lot'' of editors probably pick "WikipediaEditor321" or something in perfectly good faith, so those should be dealt with quite a bit more gently. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 01:05, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

== Deleted a loooong story and misfiled science RfC ==

Just FYI: there was a six-paragraph story about how two users weren't getting along, misfiled under "Science" so that "Creationism" became subject 5.1 and all other subjects a subset about this. I pared it down to core: two people are arguing about falsifiability; I also put it in the right category (biology). --] 18:32, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

==Is any username with "hate" in it supposed to go to AIV?==
{{user|Ihatehighschoolmusical}} for example. Is using the word hate worthy of going straight to AIV? I want to know for future reference. <font color="#1874CD"><b>]</b></font><small><sup><font color="B22222">]</font></sup></small> 20:54, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
:I would only say usernames with the word hate in should go to AIV if they offend anyone, for instance ] would be a clear infringement, the one you quoted up there isn't going to offend anyone, so shouldn't be reported. Not all usernames with hate in will be disallowed, it depends on the context ]<sup>See ] or ]</sup> 21:09, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
::Thanks. The ] says that names implying hate are inappropriate, but it doesn't specify what the hate has to be directed towards. I suppose if this user started trolling the ] page, it would be different. <font color="#1874CD"><b>]</b></font><small><sup><font color="B22222">]</font></sup></small> 21:15, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Huh. Someone reported it to AIV and it has been indefinitely . <font color="#1874CD"><b>]</b></font><small><sup><font color="B22222">]</font></sup></small> 03:13, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

== Incidents. ==

This warning appeared on my talk page:

''Hi Acalmari. Please read WP:U. In future, any entires made to WP:RFCN reporting user names where the guidelines are not followed will be removed. You made no attempt to ask the user to change his name, instead going straight to RFC. This is not fair to the user, please don't do it again. Neil (not Proto ►) 16:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC)''

I responded with ''I did tell the user. I was told to use the tags. What guideline am I not following now?

''Why is it you only commented on ] and not any of the others? Also, why does everyone go on about me for not following policy, when Betacommand, who is an administrator, blocked a load of users the other week for having inflammmatory names, when in fact their names were fine. Why was nothing done about Betacommand? He didn't even inform the users: he just blocked them. I'm taking this to the RFC/U talk page.''

Anyway, I ''did'' give Wwe raw smackdown fans the required tags. I have no idea why Neil is saying that I didn't. I have made sure that I've given the necessary tags to users (though I have accidentally missed one, I will admit). Also, I thought the point of RFC/U was to ''comment'' on a users name, not to block it outright.

You see, I thought it was necessary to go to RFC/U first if you're unsure about a username. What's the point in asking a user to change their name if their name might be okay? I thought that RFC/U was to clear issues like that up; so users at least got a chance to explain their names, and get to keep them. ] 16:36, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

*This has been resolved: there is no reason to respond to this message. ] 19:58, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

== TfD nomination of Template:{{ucfirst:Linkimage}} ==

] has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at ]. Thank you.<!--Template:Tfdnotice--> &nbsp; — ] <span class="plainlinksneverexpand">(]&#124;])</span> 23:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

== ] ==

{{user|Maaparty}} uses the signature ] I've asked him to change it (and I'm about to block him for an unrelated offence), but if he refuses to change, can he be blocked under the User-name policy, or is there some other route? --] (]) 12:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

==Complaints against ]==

Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/User:Kittybrewster/VK_rfc




== Technical Problems surrounding another language ==

On an article I'm watching, I am sure there was a content dispute, and the dispute is seemingly one that stem from the Japanese Misplaced Pages, and most of the participants, me excluded, were disputing in Japanese, a language that I don't know. I want to start a RfC, and I know their general opinion, but I doubt I can do the ''statement of editors'' part in the sample RfC, since they are disputing with Japanese... What should I do? --]-- <sub>]·]</sub> 12:52, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
:RfCs should not be conducted in Japanese, for that very reason. If you must start an RfC, get someone to translate or something. -] <small>]</small> 14:19, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

== Logging RfCs in article talk - template suggestion ==

Hi. I was thinking that it might be nice to log past article content RfCs on the article talk page, perhaps with a nice template. That would act as a reminder that a specific issue had already been taken to the community and of any consensus that was reached. This is not to forestall further discussion or a change of consensus, simply to alert the lone editor looking to repeat something that has already been discussed and to gently dissuade that editor from doing so without reopening a discussion and to make it easier for editors that undo such a non-consensus and repeated change to alert the lone editor that s/he needs to hold off and reopen discussion before making, and perhaps edit-warring over, the change. Comments, please. --] 14:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

:That's a good idea. It wouldn't be hard to create a template based the other ones. Though, it would probably be good to do this for ''any'' content issue, the problem is it is so difficult to keep track of every issue discussed on a talk page and topic-indexed archives are extremely time-consuming to create and maintain. Though, RfCs would be the more contentious issues that shouldn't be repeatedly hashed out and they would be a subset, of those issues that someone thought was major enough to bring in outside opinions. —]→]&nbsp;&bull; 16:56, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

== BDORT ==

::''The guidance at the top of the page says "do not continue the debate here, or make personal comments on this page", so I moved the discussion below from the project page to this talk page.'' -- ] (]) 03:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

*]. This article was recently Arbitrated and I was banned, after I initiated the arbitration, after many months of battling to get a NPOV article and get the defamatory misleading and POV/OR statements removed, after I called two rounds of Mediation. I am officially representing the subject, Dr Omura, that is, I have his permission and support to do so. The sole editor that remains, Crum375, who is recently made an Admin, spent many months defending a version that contained blatant ] defamatory statements about the subject that had to be Admin deleted at my request after his refusal to cooperate . Before this happened real world harm was done to the subject by these statements that the subject had to defend in real life and state to be false. He was so disturbed by them that he made a public statement. Some further background is here. A previous mediator Che, expressed strong concerns over Crum375's good faith in this matter and described Crum375 as "continually resistant to mediation". Crum375 has written the article now in what I think is easily seen as a subtle but very POV/OR way which I will describe and list main points succinctly if anyone will contact me re this on my talk page. It needs some truly neutral editors. ''Please note'': the fact that I am considered a 'single issue editor' has been used in an attempt to, but does not change the facts, as I relate them here one bit. Thank you.] 11:45, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
:*] has taken ], with essentially the same arguments, and lost. ArbCom ] that he, along with his sock/meatpuppets, are to be indef-banned from all ] related pages. His bringing a closed case that was ruled upon just last month by ArbCom to this forum is inappropriate, IMO. ] 20:41, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
::* Admin, SlimVirgin, noted the point that Arbcom ruled on 'behaviour', not content. Many professional people related to this entry attempted to stop the defamation - until it was finally remedied after much pressure - this is the 'behavior' the ArbCom ruled about. The content issues I mention above are not addressed at all. These content issues need to be addressed urgently. (As I have also noted repeatedly, despite what the approximate IP lookups found - I never used sockpuppets).] 01:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
:::*ArbCom ruled that you and your sock/meatpuppets edited ] ]. They also noted that you are a single purpose account, practicing BDORT on patients. They therefore banned all of you from the BDORT related pages. As of now, the BDORT entry is ], ], and has even been modified to focus on the BDORT procedure, not its inventor, so as to eliminate ]-related issues. Any neutral editor is more than welcome to help improve it, of course, but you and your puppets may not participate on those pages, per the ArbCom ruling. ] 02:16, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
::::*Arbcom did rule this. However, that is not the whole story: they did not mention the '''fact''' that the version/article that was as they interpreted "aggressively" edited as well as many previous versions contained blatant ] breaches and fictions (that is also a fact that you repeatedly pro-actively supported) that caused real world harm to a living person - that was Admin deleted as such at my request, and as such was determinedly edited by people trying to stop misrepresentation and harm in the real world. No one in WP has apologized which is of course the decent thing to do. This is indicative as well. As I have noted, you are being uncivil by suggesting I am lying when saying I never used sockpuppetry when I say I never did. Please be civil. IP searches can often give statistical, approximate information, not exact information. In this case it missed. Your beliefs don't change these facts and are merely wishful guesses.] 04:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC) Your claims for NPOV and neutrality for the current version were also made by you to many previous versions - that had to have changes in them forced by Admins/mediators despite your and another editor's resistance to them, in order to remove uncited, inaccurate, OR, and BLP serious problems. This is currently a repeat situation - there are serious content issues. The history shows that you were greatly mistaken in the past re the OKness of the article. Real world harm was done as a result. ] 05:05, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
:::::* I have also contacted the WP Foundation directly in all this regard in detail. However, immediate intervention in the current version is necesaary.] 05:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
::::::*ArbCom reviewed the entire case, including all your above complaints, and their only findings regarding any policy violation were related to ]. After their unanimous decision ], we decided to further improve the ] entry by refocusing it on BDORT the procedure and not its inventor, to eliminate any possible BLP concern. As I noted above, although the entry is already in very good shape, any neutral editor is more than welcome to try to improve it even further. ] 11:41, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
:(unindent) Richard, at this point it would be best to directly e-mail the Foundation. The volunteers who handle these complaints are generally very conscientious. Not only is your argument with Crum here counterproductive, but any users who made edits at your behest would run the risk of being banned from the article as well, for acting as the proxy of a banned user. I don't think any conclusion can be drawn one way or another from ArbCom's failure to act on the content of the article because ArbCom almost never rules on content. ] 01:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

== Procedural question ==

I am currently involved in an RFC on including a website as an external link (see ]). The comments (five editors so far) have all agreed the website is not valid for inclusion, but the editor who disputes this remains adamant that the link is valid for inclusion. Looking at the instructions, #4 says '''"After all parties agree the issue has been resolved, strike it from the listing."'''. My question is what happens if the parties still don't agree? It does not appear all parties will ever agree on this question, so if the issue is unresolved I am not sure what to do next. Any direction or advice would be appreciated. Thanks in advance for your help, ] 16:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
:This instruction is just so people don't remove active, unresolved disputes (e.g. if someone involved in the dispute is cleverly happy about the way the discussion is going and wants to close off all outside comment that might help the minority). Discouraging that is more important than worrying about striking an item where it is usually obvious to someone responding if it is a closed resolved issue anyway. This particular dispute looks pretty closed and clear-cut at that, so you can strike it if you want. —]→]&nbsp;&bull; 03:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
::Thanks very much - the RFC was archived by another user today, so I will strike. ] 04:16, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

== Confused now ==

We're thinking about starting an RFC process on Wikibooks, and I was hoping to point to this page as an example of "how to do it well", but it's really too much on the eyes now, and there doesn't seem to be a good template for user conduct RFCs any more. I guess the last time I was involved with Wikipedian RFCs was 6 months+ ago (I had at one point made a commitment to try to render an opinion on as many as I could), but got involved in other things, so haven't really looked around for a while.

It's all become very bureaucratic and scary now... not the best way to encourage people to comment (and this is supposed to be a request for comments, right?), and I wish you guys could go back to the simple. It wasn't broke, and in fixing it, you've ruined it. I don't know what else to say... I will not be watching this page, so if I need to clarify something, please say so on my talk. --]|<sup>]</sup>|<sub>]</sub> 23:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

== ] ==

People who are interested in user conduct ] may wish to consider a new alternative in dispute resolution that can provide arbitration-like remedies without going through full arbitration. This is an experimental program. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 15:57, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

== Reference Desk ==

I think I would like people to comment on the ], but I don't see how can I ask for this, since the Reference Desk is neither a userpage nor an article (and what it is is the very thing we don't seem to know). ] 19:35, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

It's been 6 days now and I still do not know how to request comments on the Reference Desk. ] 16:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
:A.Z., what exactly about that talk page do you want people to comment on? --] 16:58, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

== Alerting users to an RFC? ==

Is there a proper method to alert involved users to a user-conduct RFC? Is it okay to post a notice on the talk page(s) where the dispute(s) has taken place, or should one instead post on user talkpages? It'd be nice to have official advice on this here. '''<font color="006400">]</font>''' (<font size="1"><sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub></font>) 01:58, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

:Have a look at ]. Posting on public venues, i.e. article or project talk pages is best. Posting on user talk pages should be done minimally and preferably neutrally to both sides of any dispute. ] 02:57, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

::However, if there is a user RfC where a ''specific user'' is commented on, either as the subject or as someone involved, that's probably one of the cases where you should notify on user talk, since people have a right to know if they're being commented on. -] <small>]</small> 03:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

== Suggestion to give RFCs teeth ==

This would apply mostly to user conduct RFCs, I guess, but could be adapted to other versions, such as article.

One perennial complaint against the current RFC format/procedure is that it lacks teeth. There can be overwhelming consensus that Person X has done something wrong, a thousand users all sign a thousand outside views to that effect - and yet nothing gets done until things get significantly worse and/or the whole mess gets sent up to ]. Essentially, there is no resolution to RFCs: hence they tend to drag on forever, never get closed, clog up the RFC user conduct page, and nothing gets done. The whole thing can be a bit of a waste of words.

Given the current expansion in ] and '''community sanctions of all sorts''' - recently, the community has topic-banned an editor from one set of articles, a decision later endorsed and affirmed by ArbCom, and just now banned another editor from a project he was ], I think that a blend of these community sanctions with RfCs might work.

It would surely be possible to amend the RfC format so as to include a closing discussion for all concerned relating to possible compromises in hard-to-call cases, and what those bringing the RFC would consider an acceptable outcome that would kill off the problems raised with Person X's conduct. Once that is done, and some ideas thrashed out - such as limited topic/page bans, revert paroles, article probation, personal attack/civility paroles, etc - that discussion switches over to the ]. If the community endorses the suggested remedies, all well and good: if not, and there is no consensus, there remains the option of kicking it all upstairs for the Arbitrators to think about.

Doubtless there are some problems with this, but I think that the basic idea - of giving RFCs teeth by bringing potential community sanctions into play - is a good one. Thoughts? ] <sup> ]</sup> 14:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
:This sounds like a great idea to me, I definitely support it (for what it's worth). ] ] 14:27, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

::Would we rename it to "Requests for decisions"? <small>]<sup>(Need help? ])</sup></small> 14:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
:::You don't have to. The main point of RFCs would still be the comments: this extra addition would not be required. It doesn't have to be used unless people actually want to. Quite apart from anything else, several RFCs - Essjay's springs to mind here - were essentially requests for decisions anyway. ] <sup> ]</sup> 14:32, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
*'''Concern''': The current structure is set up around requesting comment. "I would like the community to express an opinion on the following events" is the form the conversation takes. I'm concerned that the suggested change, while useful sounding at first glance, might result in a chilling effect on RfCs (which suddenly become much more serious) and might, in effect, reduce the effectiveness of the process in gathering consensus. If people asplode or do objectionable things, it's rare that an RfC is required to club them into submission. Usually, it's the sanity check that gets the person to realize that the person asking them to knock something off isn't crazy, and it's only when the 'target' digs their feet in against the community that anything like arbcom ever happens. Usually misdeeds are clearly actionable already. With that in mind, I'm also concerned that this change would alter our current situation to one where ten wolves and a sheep vote on what to eat for dinner. To summarize:
#If RfCs start to have "action items", then people may be less likely to use them.
#It may make it easier for a mob to take someone apart, because "clearly, consensus has been reached that UserX is the devil", or a similar situation.
Regards, ]</small> (]) 14:40, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
::Response: I'm not entirely sure concern 1 is altogether justified. Usually when RfCs are filed Editor X is heartily sick of Editor Y after 6 months of disruption and wants something to be done, and is usually quite disappointed when they twig that nothing is. All their elaborate typing and presentation of evidence quite often just gets repeated at RFAR.

::Re concern 2: while I know from my failed RFA that having the wolves vote on The Lamb of Misplaced Pages is not an altogether pleasant experience, that is why I have built in this safeguard of consensus at ], which is usually fairly rational and will throw out anything especially grotesque. Nothing can be enforced without broad community consent, which is why a "10 wolves + one sheep situation" shouldn't occur. Not to be reductive, but if broad community consensus is that User X is the devil, then usually User X is. That's the whole philosophy behind community bans, after all. Hopefully, though, this should not be about branding devils: this is about getting enforced/able sanctions into place with community consent that will end problems raised at RFCs. ] <sup> ]</sup> 15:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
*I'm sure this sort of thing has been discussed many times before. Don't like the idea much myself since the real idea here is to get people to get a range of input from the community for the benefit all parties concerned, enabling self improvement possibly from all sides, either through someone toning down/altering some behaviour and/or the other side being a little less sensitive/understanding of the general community view. The ability to resolve disputes with broad community input and without the threat is important. Starting such a discussion with an explicitly (or implicit) proposed remedy will tend to force the discussion to if that remedy is appropriate or not, rather than drawing out the bigger picture of all those involved. I can't see how the current format would support a sanctions based approach, who interprets the debate and determines if there is a sanction to be given out. If the proposed sanction appears to harsh do we then go around the same route again proposing something less harsh or could the closer determine something less than.<br>
*The community can also be very reactive, issues are huge one second and forgotten the next. Witch hunts could be a result of such a basis. Realistically if someone's behaviour is so poor you could get a good consensus here for some sort of sanctions, a ] should be a no-brainer anyway. I have to question if this wouldn't be used by those who know that arbcom are unlikely to act or may also scrutinise their own behaviour as a way of harassing other editors. --] 15:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
**I don't see how this could have been discussed much before: the whole area of community sanctions is very new turf and is still expanding and developing. I suppose the real issue with RFAR - why people who have nothing to hide avoid it - is that it's so darn slow. Months of water torture is not a pleasant experience: I know, I've been there.
**The major safeguard with this is that anything proposed or agreed upon by the majority at the RFC would have to be endorsed by the entire community at ]. I suppose if two editors agreed a mutual civility parole or something like that that wouldn't need ratification as it's just between them, but that doesn't happen that often. The decisions of the community are usually fairly rational and, for that matter, consensus of the community is the bedrock on which everything at Misplaced Pages is built. If we can't trust community consensus to be applied to RFC...well, we've rather lost our reason for being. To the question: "who interprets the debate and determines if there is a sanction to be given out" the answer is "The usual. Everyone. Us." If there is a problem with the conduct of one of those bringing the RFC, there's nothing to stop the whole process being reversed, or someone uninvolved looking at it. ] <sup> ]</sup> 15:43, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
*** It certainly has been discussed before, I'll try and find some references. As to the speed of arbcom, for critical issues arbcom can deal with things quite quickly, but generally I'd rather see slow but measured responses than swift and misguided action.
*** Maybe my point wasn't entirely clear. If you go in assuming a consequence the focus and outcome of the debate are jarred by that. In the current setup with multiple outside views, some with considerable overlap not necessarily all positive or all negative to one or more of the participants. The who decides question is far more complex. Reading consensus into such a situation where one person may have endorsed multiple overlapping (even slightly contradictory) statements is more involved. If you really want to go down this route It would seem better to keep RFC exactly as it is, then after a reasonable time those involved (all "sides") haven't modified there own behaviour, then instigate a further discussion at ]. Even that I'm still not convinced that this won't have it's problems of witch hunts, aggresive sanctions on "social aspects" rather than building the encyclopedia etc. Consider the case of someone like Carnildo with OrphanBot there are a lot of the community who would happily give out sanctions for that (image copyright issues = drama, for reason). --] 18:22, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
*It's not a bad idea in principle, but we need to implement it in some way that prevents abuse by axe-grinders and moral panic - and I'm not at all sure that's possible. If we don't, it won't be long before people turn this into ]. ] 15:22, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
::Hang on a sec, there's some good points here. Just writing up replies. Thanks to all for the feedback. Cheers, ] <sup> ]</sup> 15:27, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
:::Hopefully community consensus at ] would be sufficient to prevent axe-grinders: that would be needed if any suggested sanction is to be ratified. As regards moral panics...appeals to the ArbCom are always possible, ditto Jimbo. Incidentally, compromised accounts apart no one - as far as I know - has ever been desysopped per community consensus, and that should not change now. ] <sup> ]</sup> 15:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
:I think it would be better if an RFC refers a case to ], instead of duplicating the process of CN. It is a request for comments, not a place to make sanctions. <small>]<sup>(Need help? ])</sup></small> 15:51, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
::Which is what I was proposing. Discuss potential sanctions - what form, etc - at RFC maybe, but they must be discussed by the community at CN for them to be ratified. ] <sup> ]</sup> 15:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
:::I've always figured RfCs can be a useful way to gauge a general consensus regarding a controversial issue of the sort where threaded discussion hasn't necessarily been successful. It also enables you to go "on the record" about a particular problem or issue, and see what a number of people think about it. Being able to go to CN and say "We tried an RfC, and generally agreed Foo has been disruptive and needs to calm down, but Foo has completely ignored this and hasn't changed at all" might save some trouble. I frequently hear people complain that RfCs don't accomplish anything -- maybe I'm missing the point, and they're not entirely supposed to, but if they are, this seems like it. &ndash; <span style="font-family: Garamond">] (])</span> 18:51, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) Given the increasing flexibility of community sanctions options at ] and the general swiftness of decisions there, along with the alternative ] option, it would be redundant to incorporate sanctions directly into ]. The problem with that idea has always been its decentralization: only the people who already know about a problem are likely to respond to user conduct complaints so that becomes highly gameable for wikilawyering attempts to railroad an unpopular editor. The site has a central location now where uninvolved people take a look after RFC closes. So I don't see how this proposal fills any gap and the existing remedy venues are better. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 19:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

:I think Chairboy hit the nail on the head. A user that is the subject of an RFC can either listen to the comments or ignore them. A user violating policies can be blocked, period. The relation between the two is that if a user has been through an RFC in which problematic behavior was agreed to, they probably deserve less slack if they continue the same policy-violating problematic behavior in the future. As it stands RFC is a successful method of dispute resolution: adding sanctions that will be officially ruled on will turn RFC into a form of mob justice. ]]<sup>]</sup> 17:03, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
::I strongly disagree with the assertion that "RFC is a succesful method". RFCs tend to either turn into a back-and-forth flamefest between the two (or more) parties into the dispute, or tend to be pretty much ignored by their subject who remains convinced he isn't doing anything wrong, or tend to become polarized by friends or fans of the subject who know WP is better off with him so therefore he may not be sanctioned or censured in any way whatsoever. ] 09:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
::*As a prime example of what Radiant is talking about, we have the current ], which has been open for over ten days. The editor is clearly ignoring the RfC, having received notice of it and requests to comment-- which he subsequently deleted, continuing to make edits in the same problematic fashion. There's the sticky bit: effectively, if tendentious individuals simply ignore Wikipedians' opinions or consensus, on matters of behaviour or policy, they can game the system for quite a while, until (and if) the issue goes to ArbCom; and even after that, they can always recreate a persona, and start all over again. RfC only "works" if all parties actually care about Misplaced Pages, or their participation as part of it. It's not going to work for someone who arrives with a particular agenda outside improving the encyclopaedia. --<font size="-2"><strong>]<sup>]</sup></strong></font> 06:25, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
This honestly sounds like most discussions at ]. Or really, like a community version of ]. And how is taking something to the ] going to do anything but essentially start a new RfC at that page? : ) - ] 15:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

==Question about deletion==
Was ] supposed to be deleted a while ago? Until a few hours ago, it only had one certifier. --] 07:48, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

== RfC on myself? ==

I want to be commented on so I can see what changes to my editing style and conduct, if any, I should make. Is RfC the proper method for that?

<font color="navy">]</font><i><sub><font color="forestgreen" >]</font></sub></i> 15:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
:] may be better. ] <sup> ]</sup> 15:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

:No it's probably not, an RfC is generally only if other editors believe you've behaved in a poor manor, it's a form of ]. Might I suggest ]? ] 15:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

:Thank you! I knew I saw what I wanted somewhere before, but I could not remember the name. Thanks! <font color="navy">]</font><i><sub><font color="forestgreen" >]</font></sub></i> 16:09, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

== Merge ==

] should be histmerged into these archives, in my opinion. ] was redirected to ] a while back. ] 01:22, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
:The proper place to merge is the page where it was moved to, ]. RFC was a new page and is not associated with that talk archive. —]→]&nbsp;&bull; 16:04, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Done. —]→]&nbsp;&bull; 16:04, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

== Move from candidate to approved? ==

I notice the MONGO RfC remains a "candidate". Is this an oversight? Who moves a page from candidate status to approved status once the two-person threshold has been reached? --] 12:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
:I fail to see how ] did anything to resolve the dispute between myself and you...Tyrenius and myself had a prior disagreement...you knew this and went to him directly when you and I had a dispute, Tyrenius did not have a dispute regarding the same subject matter with me as you do and had not once made an atempt to resolve this dispute with me because we had no dispute in relation to the one you and I had.--] 18:24, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
I did not know (nor did Tyrenius, apparently, or he wouldn't have accepted my request). It is of course a technical question, and I am waiting for an adminstrator to decide. That said, I am aware that one possible outcome of this RfC is that I am completely alone (at least in terms of an available dispute resolution process). That, again, will let me know where I stand in relation to WP. So it's all good.--] 07:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
==Notification question==
When you create one of these what is the standard etiquette for notification? I'd like to notify people who have had the same specific trouble with the user but I don't want to seem like I'm stacking the table. The users in question have had the same exact problem with the user as I have had. ] 00:44, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

== Certification of RfCs ==

Following the drama at ], and the deletion of the RfC for not being certified, is there a case for suggesting that uncertified RfCs that generate large amounts of community input should be ''moved'' to an appropriate location to preserve the discussion? I think the uncertified RfC bit was only meant to prevent obviously one-sided RfCs from hanging around, but cases like this are a bit different. ] 14:46, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

* There might be a case; if they are I would suggest that they are indefinitely protected. --] 01:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

* One good reason for deleting them is the assumption that an uncertified dispute may contain statements which are simply not true. Untrue, unsubstantiated claims against a living person (a Wikipedian) are flatly in violation of core policy; the fact that they are in community space and not article space in no way reduces the obligation of Misplaced Pages not to publish defamation. Simply put, deleting uncertified RfCs is protection against using RfC as a vehicle for harassment. ] (]) 03:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

**Yes, I realise that. But you don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. On other pages where there are libellous claims, you could ask an oversighter to remove those claims. Or just remove them so they only exist in the page history. ] 09:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe it is better to err on the side of caution. I see no need to retain uncertified RfCs. I simply fail to find any compelling reason to do so. Dispute resolution, RfA and other venues which increase scrutiny end up raking a lot of muck at times. This makes me believe there is a compelling reason to delete uncertified RfCs, which if left around could be mined for mud to fling in such cases. In essence, keeping invalid RfCs around only serve to ]. Just my opinion. You're more than welcome to some grains of salt with it. ] 17:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

==Vandalization of RFC/ECON page ==

Andrew Kliman {{User|Akliman}} '''twice''' removed a RFC which I sent concerning the use of the expression "New Orthodox Marxists" in the TSSI article. He also removed '''two other RFCs''' I wrote -- 1 concerned ] and the other was also about the TSSI article but concerned a different issue. ] 13:48, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

==]==

Please see my summarised page format as at 12.56 p.m. today. It is laid out in correct form with proper and direct references. It has been thrice reverted by ] who is pushing a false and vague claim on this page and has been disrupting it and other connected pages for some time now with a clearly non-neutral argument which is totally unsupported by any of the great scholars on this subject, right back to ]. We either have correct articles or we have articles packed with personal opinions and claims. Which is it to be? ] 13:09, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

== Where do I list three-letter acronym, disambiguation pages? ==

I would like to list ], but I can't figure out where. I'm guessing ]. Is this correct? &mdash;] | ] 08:45, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

:If the issue is about a characterization of one of the articles, such as the television character, list it under the appropriate subject, such as the Society page. If the issue is about the style of disambiguation pages, list it on the Style page, and also mention it on the talk page of the Disambiguation style guide or similar. You can list it at a couple of places if the issue is ambiguous. —]→]&nbsp;&bull; 02:31, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

== What to do when RFC results are disputed? ==

I opened an RFC for comments regarding the citing of my own material, and material from my magazine, on ] here . I summarized the RFC comments here , however ] objects, and I feel he is misrepresenting the summary. I have some questions regarding policy:

*Isn't the purpose of an RFC to resolve disputes between involved parties? Isn't it misrepresenting the ''results'' of an RFC to include the comments of involved parties as results?


:Still waitin on those examples, btw. ] (]) 19:27, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
Mindful of potential COI issues, I have tried to resolve this issue through proper RFC channels and feel that David Lyons is disrupting the process. I don't think I should be in the absurd situation of having to ask for an RFC on the results of an RFC! I appreciate your comments. ] 01:18, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
::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)
==Compromise Regina Neighbourhoods==


: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)
I have posted a compromise to the issues in the ]. It is my hope that this will lead to a solution over the disputed figures and edits. I also hope that this will eliminate future accusations as to my identity and/or relation to other banned users. I would appreciate that you read over the compromise and comment on it. I just want to find a solution, that will satisfy all parties.--] 07:28, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
::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)
==]==
::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)
This page has been created to serve as RfC for issues of reliability of specific sources.--<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</span></sub> 18:21, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


== RfCs about ] ==
== Where does education fit here? ==


There's an ongoing discussion here: ] ] (]) 11:38, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
In which RfC category would you recommend a RfC for an article about education go? The article is ], by the way; we'd like some independent comment about what needs to be done to make it fully balanced according to NPOV guidelines (or whether it is already so). ] 17:18, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


== RFC on signing RFCs ==
:I would put it in History or Society or both. —]→]&nbsp;&bull; 23:33, 13 June 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}}
==Endorsement guidelines==
Are there instructions anywhere on endorsement etiquette? Forgive me for asking, but this is the first time I've filed a User Confuct RfC, so I'm not entirely clear on procedure, and I've been getting conflicting advice. For example, if I'm one of the editors who has filed and certified an RfC, am I also allowed to endorse the various views that come in? Or should I stay out of it? Ditto with the individual who is being discussed ''in'' the RfC... Should they be endorsing views? Or just listening? Thanks, ]]] 17:05, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
: As a follow-up on this question, what are people's feelings about whether or not the subject of a User Conduct RfC, should or should not add their own endorsements to the RfC? --]]] 15:57, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


Should the words "or <nowiki>~~~~~</nowiki> (just the time and date)" be removed from statement 5 of ]?
==Blatantly false summary==


] (]) 18:18, 13 November 2024 (UTC)


===Survey===
was closed by mutual agreement, and it was also . The RfC was then without being archived, so I . KillerChihuahua then edited my summary of this dispute. It previously read:
* '''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===
], 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)
KillerChihuahua changed it to read:
{{abot}}


== ArbCom limits on RFC comments ==
"Unanimous rejection of assertions made, with solitary exception of person bringing Rfc."


Just FYI:
KillerChihuahua’s edit summary says:


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).
"Correction. This is ridiculous - about 30 ppl have told you your Rfc is basically nonsense, and you continue the "fight" in archives? Get another hobby, Ferrylodge."


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)
KC's summary is blatantly false, and misleading as well. '''''Neither''''' of the parties who brought this RfC have rejected the assertions initially made. And they are not the only ones who have agreed that at least some of Bishonen's diffs purportedly showing harassment do not actually show harassment. Therefore, I KC’s summary merely to say “This summary is disputed.” She then .


== How long is the result of an RFC valid for? ==
I am tempted to withdraw my consent to close this RfC, and begin arbitration, except that this has already wasted too much of my time. This RfC is archived, so people will always be able to see for themselves what the facts are and whether they have been fairly considered, and that's enough for me. However, I object to KillerChihuahua unilaterally insisting on a that does not even allow me to register dissent with that blatantly false summary.] 17:49, 14 June 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)
==Unjustified deletion==
I object to of material in the previous section. There was nothing uncivil about the deleted material.] 01:04, 15 June 2007 (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 ] (]) 01:40, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
:], this is EXACTLY the same type of obstinate nonsense that got you blocked in the first place. Other than one uninvolved editor, whom you snagged to 'support the underdog' (his words), not one person supported you in the RFC. Everyone agreed that the block was proper and that the block comment was proper. It was not a no-concensus or no-conclusion. It was resounding conclusion. You harassed, you were warned, your ego objected, you repeatedly ignored the warning to stop, you got blocked, you filed AN/I and were rejected, you filed RFC and were rejected. Its over. Get over yourself already, sir. please? ] 01:25, 15 June 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)