Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for comment: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 11:53, 18 July 2005 editFuelWagon (talk \| contribs)5,956 edits →first step towards punitive measures ← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 21:40, 24 December 2024 edit undoSoni (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers10,932 edits →RFC on signing RFCs: Closing discussion (DiscussionCloser v.1.7.3-8)
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{talkheader\|wp=yes\|noarchive=yes\|search=no\|shortcut=WT:RFC}}
	For talk on why this page was created see: ] and ].
			{{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 ].}}
			{{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}}
			{{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 ==
	] ]

			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)
	== Deleting uncertified RFC's (again) ==
			: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 used to be guideline that RFCs were to be deleted if not certified within 48 hours, but that wasn't actually enforced by anyone. Since policy and guideline are dictated by consensus, and consensus doesn't wish this enforced, it isn't guideline any more. Hence, the rewording of the template. Somebody is probably going to cite ] in the next couple of days, but the fact is that wording should reflect actual practice, if actual practice doesn't live up to theoretical wording. ]]] 14:57, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
			: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: ]; ]; ]; ]. --] 🌹 (]) 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". --] 🌹 (]) 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?
	: It's apparent that you haven't read this talk page. This topic has been brought up before and dismissed. Deletion of uncertified RFC's is preferred. Do not assume that because this page has had little admin maintenance that it implies a change to a long-help practice is necessary. -- ] ] 01:12, 2005 May 24 (UTC)
	:*Please provide evidence for your claims. To my best knowledge, that simply isn't the case. For instance, ] was never deleted by anyone, and a request on yielded no response. ] was considered by many to be improper, yet several people have refused to delete it on grounds that it's improper to delete any RFC. ]]] 07:29, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
	:**I have left messages for both of those users asking if they want the respective RfCs kept. If not, I will delete them per policy. ] \| ] 06:08, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
	:*See also ], which many people argue should be kept despite being invalid (some people also argue that it ''isn't'' invalid, but that's not my point). ]]] 08:00, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
	:**Hehe... Interesting but so far from ordinary that it can't be used as a precedent. Subject of RfC was the second certifier, VfD consensus was that this made it a valid RfC. ] \| ] 06:08, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
	:*See also ], which again is a failed attempt to have an uncertified RFC deleted. ]]] 11:45, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
	:**The RfC ''was'' deleted. This was about whether a user had the right to keep a copy of an uncertified RfC in their user space. ] \| ] 06:08, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
	:*See also ], which did not get any certification since its creation at April 9th (despite being in the relevant category) and hasn't been deleted in the past month-and-a-half. ]]] 11:47, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
	:**Deleted with the summary "Empty RfC created two months ago in the wrong namespace." ] \| ] 06:08, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

			{\| class="wikitable"
	:: Use your browser's "Find" function and search for "delet" on this page and ]. You will see that deletion is a ] with no consensus for change, when ]. Your examples only show that recently the page has lacked admin attention -- they do not show that opinions about deletion have changed. -- ] ] 12:48, 2005 May 30 (UTC)
			\|+ Should we require all RFCs to be signed with a username?
	*Okay, I just did that, and it proves you wrong. The above has you as the sole defendant on deleting RFCs, and on Archive 2, Michael Snow says that ''Removed has meant, in practice, only that the listing is removed from RfC.'' and in the later discussion a sizeable amount of people do not want them deleted, once more with you as the most vocal defendant, and JGuk as the only one backing you. The recent events I've repeatedly pointed out to you don't just show that no admins archive this page, but ''also'' that if brought to their attention, they are entirely unwilling to delete invalid RFCs. ]]] 13:31, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
			\|-
			! {{yes}}, we should require this.
			! {{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.
			* 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.
			\| scope="col" width="50%" \|
			* 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.
			\|}

			] (]) 19:23, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
	: If you disagree, then ask the question '''directly''', prove consensus. In the meantime, stope revert warring, because the page should remain in its original state until this is settled. Few people have that page on their watchlists, and your change is somewhat sneaky. -- ] ] 01:22, 2005 May 31 (UTC)
	*I did ask my question directly on AN/I and nobody responded. This has nothing to do with sneaky since I explained it in ''this'' talk section. The earlier conversations you pointed out show that there is no consensus for deleting RFC pages, nor is it a valid deletion criteria anywhere in deletion policy. There have been several RFCs in the past half year that were invalid, but ''none'' were deleted. The RFC template is simply misleading. ]]] 08:11, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
	*Let's take this example... ]. It is not certified, and is presently two and a half days old. Now if you are correct about RFC procedure, then it will be unlisted and deleted as soon as it's brought to the admins' attention (which would be relatively easy; there are likely some admins who read RFC regularly, and otherwise putting it on AN/I, or adding a {db} tag, would do it). We'll see what happens. ]]] 08:58, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
	**I have left a message on Uncle G's talk page asking if he wants the RfC kept. If not, I will delete it per policy. ] \| ] 06:08, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

			:Still waitin on those examples, btw. ] (]) 19:27, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
	*Thanks, SWAdair. I've in the past tried to get a couple of them deleted, but have not met with any success. Thus I'm not sure where consensus lies. But personally I think that uncertified RFCs are close to personal attacks and should be removed. ]]] 11:06, Jun 6, 2005 (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, why in the hell were you arguing the opposite at the top of this section? -- ] ] 13:31, 2005 Jun 6 (UTC)
			:::Then I am not interested in your theorizing, fair's fair. ] (]) 19:35, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
	***No swearing please. If SWAdair can delete them without raising opposition, that would show there's less opposition than I originally thought. You have not shown any evidence - he has, by doing that. Also, I find his civil and polite words more convincing than your hostile responses. ]]] 13:39, Jun 6, 2005 (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 ask again, why, if you agree that uncertified RFC's should be deleted, did you argue the opposite and try and change this established procedure even ''after'' I pointed out that you were mistaking lack of admin attention for consensus to change and declaring "''it isn't guideline any more''". -- ] ] 20:10, 2005 Jun 6 (UTC)
			:::::I would, tho. ] (]) 17:33, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
	*****Because there is a difference between what I agree with, and what consensus thinks - and obviously, the latter takes precedence. ]]] 07:38, Jun 7, 2005 (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)
	*****Policy and practice should be in agreement. Radiant found that they ''weren't'' being deleted, even after prodding, so he correctly concluded that the official procedure was not being applied and should therefore be rewritten. ] 20:43, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
	*****: That argument escapes my understanding. ] often lacks admin attention... should we then infer that the standards for template deletion should change? -- ] ] 20:51, 2005 Jun 6 (UTC)
	******:If, after repeatedly asking people, those people still would not do what TFD claims to be official procedure, then in that case the procedure would be wrong. WP lives by consensus, not ]. ]]] 07:38, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)

			:I think that both parts of this suggestion (i.e., telling people that it's usual to sign the username and adding an additional rule to post an explicit justification for not making the popular choice) are ]. ] (]) 15:40, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
	******I am more than happy to look after the uncertified RFCs, if they want deleting. ] 20:46, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
			::It's just an info page. ] (]) 15:44, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
	*******Thanks :) I can do them myself, too, as of this morning. ]]] 07:38, Jun 7, 2005 (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)
	==Archiving RFC==
			::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)
	The vast majority of RFCs are never officially closed as 'resolved', people just stop editing them when the answer is satisfactory (or, but rarely, when there's no point in continuing it). This has lead to the RFC page becoming overly long with old listings. I have been manually cleaning it out every couple weeks, by taking a bunch of old ones and moving them into the archive, and nobody has objected so far.

			== RfCs about ] ==
	I would think it sensible to employ a bot for this work. It seems possible to have it come by weekly (for instance) and look at all RFCs linked from this page, and archive any of them that have not been edited for two weeks. I think it's reasonable to assume that if an RFC is dormant for two weeks, it will not continue very often (and in the rare cases where it does, moving it back is trivial). Any thoughs? Suggestions? Objections? ]]] 08:13, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
	*There are no objections up to now. If there aren't any in the next couple of days, I will ask the botters to go ahead and automate. ]]] 11:29, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

			There's an ongoing discussion here: ] ] (]) 11:38, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
	I completely object to a bot running on this page. Disputes do not expire after two weeks - this task requires a human touch. -- ] ] 01:09, 2005 May 24 (UTC)
	*What I mentioned was after two weeks ''of inactivity'', not two weeks after creation. How else do you propose we solve this mess? Very few people ever close an RFC or unlist it; the list of article RFCs, in particular, had over a hundred old entries before I started archiving them. Now I just manually check, if it's been edited recently, and if not, archive it. That's eminently bottable. ]]] 09:24, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

			== RFC on signing RFCs ==
	:: The proposition is flawed, but I agree you're moving in the right direction with it. What should be done with a bot is to archive all RfCs, regardless, 30 days after creation. It doesn't matter whether there is recent activity or not; no new ideas come to the table after that point, only the same voices going around in the same circles. '''30 days and out.''' — ]]]] 10:52, 2005 May 25 (UTC)
			{{atop
	::*I think that's a good idea. An RFC that drags on too long is probably 1) repetitive and pointless, or 2) grounds for RFAr. In those few cases where it isn't, it's a simple matter of re-activating it. ]]] 11:29, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
			\| result = There seems to be general consensus against any change. {{nac}} ] (]) 21:40, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
	==time you split==
			}}
	page big time to fix. rfc of people and rfc of content and rfc of other.

			<!-- ] 19:01, 18 December 2024 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil\|1734548467}}
	== Splitting article RfCs by topic ==

			Should the words "or <nowiki>~~~~~</nowiki> (just the time and date)" be removed from statement 5 of ]?
	On the ] page, Maurreen suggested splitting the article RfCs into the main Misplaced Pages catergories, Culture, Geography, History, Life, Mathematics, Science, Society, and Technology. Could be a way of getting more responses, by breaking down the list into more digestable sized chunks, and allowing people with specific interests to pick up on items which may be of interest. Thoughts? ] 22:58, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
	*Shouldn't we try and clean out some old entries from the list before we see if this is needed? - ]\|] 15:17, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

			] (]) 18:18, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
	:This might also have the benefit of encouraging people to write RFCs about topics rather than people. I'm begininng to suspect that few of us are big enough to react well to being the named target of an RFC. ] 04:35, 2005 Jun 13 (UTC) (cc'ed from VP by ] (])

			===Survey===
	*There is talk of installing a bot to remove all inactive RFCs. I'd wager that only the top dozen or so are actually active. ]]] 07:38, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
			* '''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 reason I suggested splitting is to make the RFCs more active, to draw more attention to them. ] 13:53, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
			], the bot just pulled the tag. It's been 20 days since the last comment. Do you want to write the closing summary yourself, or do you want to list this at ]? (See the FAQ at the top of this page and #4 in ] if you weren't aware that you have that option.) ] (]) 01:23, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
	::I would support splitting. — ] ] 08:50, 15 Jun 2005 (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)
	:I agree there is a problem, RFC currently draws way too little attention, but I'm not sure splitting it up would help, Mathematics wouldn't get any RfCs at all and culture and history would get lots. I'd prefer removing items from the list sooner. --](]) 11:20, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)
			{{abot}}

			== ArbCom limits on RFC comments ==
	I'll probably have a go at this tomorrow morning my time (UK) when the wiki's quieter. Weyes, I was going to combine a few of the topics together otherwise I think it would be too many. Is that ok? BTW I'm trying to keep on top of old articles - but 48hrs ago I went through all of them, and I couldn't believe how many active disputes there were - and that's only the ones which have gone to RfC... ] (] 19:01, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

			Just FYI:
	:I tried to use the WP categories but they're pretty muddled, so I made up my own system. Fiddle around with them as you see fit. ] (] 22:12, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
	*Aha! This is indeed an improvement. I initially thought RFC was to be split among different pages, and I'd say that's a bad idea. Different sections on one page, though, that's useful. Possibly the 'article title' dispute section should be deprecated in favor of this one, esp. since people tend to misfile title and content disputes. ]]] 13:52, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

			Within the ] subject area, ] has all editors to a maximum of 1,000 words per RFC for the next two years (until 15 November 2027).
	**That seems like a good idea, as it does look somewhat untidy the way it's formatted at present. ] 14:33, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

			I believe this will have no effect on >90% of participants in those RFCs, but it will affect some people. ] (]) 07:18, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
	I'm not sure what you mean by 'deprecate', do you mean drop having a seperate section for title disputes, and put them in with content RfCs? If you do, I'm kinda split - the current layout is very focused - content issues are normally quite different to title disputes. Content disputes can often be sorted out by applying the appropiate policies, where as Title disputes are a bit of a nightmare. I can't help but wonder if a lot of people are not unlike me - only interested in content disputes, and I think they could just clutter up the Content section. Title disputes also seem to go on forever - again, I'd quite like to keep the rapid turn-over in Content. So I'm sort of reluctant to see them combined. ] (] 20:50, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

			== How long is the result of an RFC valid for? ==
	:Dan, this looks good. Thank you. ]

			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)
	== Misplaced Pages talk:Content labeling proposal ==

			: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)
	The discussion on the ] looks pretty dead, but it's still listed right at the bottom of the page under General convention and policy issues. I would remove it but does it need to be archived or something? --] 20:33, 20 Jun 2005 (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.
	:Okay, I worked it out all by myself. ] 22:02, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
			::@], 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)
	== dispute with ... Mel Etitis ==

	Hi everyone
	I am not sure if I am in a right place, but I am having a dispute with ... Mel Etitis on a subject and I would like to have a second opinion on the matter or see if someone else can look into this matter. He is clearly not following the guidelines.
	The way this site is designed, there is no room for improvement by users IF The administator is not accepting the changes. And what happens if the administator lack knowledge????? - ] 14:30, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

	:Is the page ], as it appears from Farvahar's edit history, or is it some other one? Has Mel Etitis used administrator powers? It looks like he just reverted on ]; administrators '''are''' allowed to edit, like anybody else. ] 16:05, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

	Thank you for your response. Yes I know he has the right to edit, but shouldnt he give a reasonable and logical explanation for doing that? The dispute is actually about two things, first this quote:
	“I have no religion, but if I were to choose one, it would be Shariati's.” (Jean-Paul Sartre)
	I asked what is the source of this quote? He is refering me to OTHER websites. This is ridiculous!!!! I know that this quote is false and has been made up by Shariati's supporter to make him big. The other thing is his degree from university of Paris, he dose NOT have a doctorate in philosophy and sociology!!!!!!
	What is the policy here, things that been entered here once, stays forever???? And we as readers should produce evidence to prove YOU wrong? Or should you provide evidence for YOUR claims?
	Mel Etitis has taken my criticism kind of personal, so he is not doing his job correctly, which is to try to find out if the information is correct or not. If you base your information on other website, then I am sorry, nobody will take you seriously.

	:In addition to removing the quote you removed all the categories from the article and made several nonsense edits. You don't really have the credibility to question the article when you are vandalising it. Make some good-faith edits, acquire some credibility, and then maybe people will take you seriously. ] 28 June 2005 04:47 (UTC)

	Well, same BS as before, WITHOUT answering the questions. Hellooooo, answer the question. Its you and your childish attitud that makes people vandalise the atricles. You put whatever nonsense on your site without having any clue what they means, then your lack of knowledge which makes it even worst.
	Forget about MY action, DO YOUR god damn JOB. Why dont you get that. Your actions should NOT be dependent on my or other people actions.
	This is like a more boddy boddy club then an educational organisation, provide evidence for the information you are puting out there.

	==Bad people dont take seriously RFC anyway, do they?==

	Okay, this is just an "I'm curious" kind of questiion. I think request for comment on mean and nasty users is great but I really wonder...does it do any good? I have seen a few of the people up for RFC flat out say they couldnt care less what was said about them, what decesions were made, and they would continue to edit regardless of whatever resolution was made. One user, as I recall, told the RFC to go screw itself, got banned for it, and simply created a new user account and continued with business as usual. This isnt a negative post, I really am very curious. What do other people think? Does it really do any good? -] 28 June 2005 04:39 (UTC)

	:I think results vary. The one RFC I filed on another user seemed to have some positive effect. ] 28 June 2005 04:59 (UTC)

	:If the subject takes the RfC seriously, all well and good. If they don't, then it can be a good way to get evidence in order for an RfAr. --] 28 June 2005 05:28 (UTC)

	As far as I am concern, administators of this site are not any better then bad users. They dont provide any evidense or reasons for thier comments either, it seems they lack konwledge on the subjects.

	Well said Carnildo "If they don't, then it can be a good way to get evidence in order for an RfAr"
	Why dont you help your friends to get the evidense for the quote above?

	== Provide evidense for the quote or REMOVE it ==


	Provide evidense for this quote or REMOVE it:

	“I have no religion, but if I were to choose one, it would be Shariati's.” (Jean-Paul Sartre)

	Religion of Shariati is Shia Islam, for those(administators) who are not familiar with this religion, its the same religion as Khominie´s religion. I dont know if you see the problem, but this is an insult to Jean-Paul Sartre. Stop spreading lies and stop acting dumb like you dont get the question.
	Its your fault why poeple start to vandalise.

	== New related proposal ==

	See a new related proposal at ]. Vote! ] ] 00:47, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

	==Changes to RfC==

	I'd like to see a substantial change to the procedure of RfCs, or at least a second kind of RfC added. Right now, RfCs are basically a punitive procedure, which is strange, since they have no actual consequence. Which means that they're a frustrating mix of obligatory part of dispute resolution and waste of time. Here's what I'd like to propose.

	First, do away with certifications. Second, do away with "endorsing summaries." Instead, an RfC should be phrased as a request - an opportunity for people to comment on a situation. The comments should be individual - no "signing off" on someone else's comments (Although saying "X has it about right" would be fine), and should be made with the goal of being helpful. "X is a troll who should be banned" is exactly what we don't need on an RfC. "X is very knowledgable, but I wish he would work more with the other editors and not try to overwhelm the article with his POV" is more useful. Or "X makes very good edits, but I wish she'd get outside support when she deals with users she sees as being a problem instead of being so hostile on the talk pages." Or "I wish X would warn users before blocking them and give them a chance to explain."

	My rough idea here being that RfCs should be an occasion to get input on something - not an obligatory step on the way to arbcomming people. To do this, though, they need an identity distinct from punitive procedures (Arbcom) and direct involvement in a dispute (Mediation).

	Thoughts? ] 16:38, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

	:I agree with the emphasis on constructive vs. punitive. I have no opinion on the specifics. Do you want to try a draft? ] 16:55, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

	* I think we should encourage people to establish more RFCs about specific content issues rather than editors. Having said that, the procedures for the former are woolier. Any does anyone feel that they work? ] 18:29:51, 2005-07-12 (UTC)

	I've started a version of what I'm talking about here at ]. If people want they can try migrating the process over here - otherwise, it's happy to exist where it is. ] 20:08, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

	:I assume this is referring to RfCs about ''people'', not articles, right? ] (] 20:29, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

	::Sure. Though I bet article RfCs could be done in the Wikimediation format too. ] 20:35, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

	:''"RfCs should be an occasion to get input on something - not an obligatory step on the way to arbcomming people"'' I absolutely agree. An RFC should be only what it's name says: a request for comments. The ''current'' RFC system could be renamed something more formal, such as an "Incident report" or something, and have all its formal requirements for evidence of disputed behaviour, certifying users, etc. An "Incident report" could then become the prerequisite for entering mediation. There should be no possible punitive outcome of an RFC, which might mean that wikipedia policy would forbid evening ''mentioning'' an RFC or anything said in an RFC in any of the punitive stages: incident report, mediation, arbitration. The request for comment form could be quite a bit more relaxed than an incident report, because it really is just trying to get outside, uninvolved comments about some event. If the talk page for an article explodes from an edit war, and every single editor on the article has taken one side of an argument or the other, an RFC would be a way to bring in some unbiased people to weigh in, make suggestions, comments, whatever might fix things. To help define what is "unbiased", it would be interesting if it could list all the editors currently involved in the dispute, and then anyone who posts a comment would have a number listed by their comment that would somehow indicate how many pages they contribute to that the editors in the dispute also contributed to. Or how many edits per overlapping page, or something. Anyway, it would simply be a numeric indicator of how uninvolved that commentor is with all the people in the dispute, versus how much history they might be dragging into their comment. It wouldn't prevent them from commenting, but it would help the editors judge just how neutral the commenter really is. the opinion of someone who hasn't interacted with any of the editors would likely be more neutral than someone who has been working with one editor on another page for a long time. Something like that, combined with the fact that there can be no punitive outcome would do a lot to encourage unbiased editors from making honest comments on an RFC. ] 06:57, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

	== "Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute" ==

	I've recently commented on three RfCs on Users, all three of which were improper in much the same ways. The main problem was that in none of the three case (RfCs on ], ], and ]) had any real attempt been made to resolve the dispute before the RfC was brought. Where diffs are given in the "Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute" sections (omitted altogether in the Melissadolbeer case), they're simply examples of the complainants' side of the argument (and often couched in aggressive tones, to the point of personal attack). Thus the RfCs were being used simply as weapons in editing disputes.

	This seems to involve a deep misunderstanding of what RfCs are for; unfortunately, in one of the three case (SlimVirgin) the RfC has been endorsed by an editor who's been around long enough to know better, who's an admin and a bureaucrat. The problem is that having had an RfC on one, even when it foundered for lack of support, can constitute something of a black mark. What can be done to discourage this sort of thing? perhaps a small group of people (call them a committee, if you like) who examine RfCs, and remove those that have been brought improperly or prematurely? Any other thoughts? --] (] 11:29, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

	:Thank you for your comment regarding the SlimVirgin RFC. The diffs for "trying to resolve and fail" have been changed to better examples. ] 23:14, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
	::Wow, the diffs that are there now are better examples? They're not examples at all, and I explain why in detail in my endorsement of SlimVirgin's summary. They're also not by two different people! If there have genuinely been two attempts at resolution and discussion, please document them before the 48 hours are up. If there haven't been, '''this RFC needs to be removed'''. ] \| ] 00:34, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

	(PS — I suppose that this isn't unconnected with the previous section. --] (] 11:31, 15 July 2005 (UTC))
	*I agree with Mel's comments, and would like to add the RFCs on ] (which is OK now but started as a 'quickpoll' to get him banned), and several others I've deleted recently for being uncertified and rather messy , or borderline personal attacks , .
	*I think that the current RFC process isn't working at all and should be scrapped entirely in favor of something else. The first problem is that some people don't use the template provided, but simply start writing somewhat incoherently. The second problem is that the template focuses heavily on evidence and policy transgressions. Basicaly, it's saying ''"I accuse ] of this and that; all in favor, say aye"''.
	*Mediation would be reasonable. Unfortunately, we now have '''four''' such processes (], ], ] and ]) and none of them seem to be helping much.
	*What I think would help a lot, is focusing on the ''conflict'' rather than the user. People often claim that ] is making a lot of mistakes, but generally the point is that said user himself has a ''conflict'' with the other user, and in most cases both parties have a point but are both somewhat stubborn. A sample template might look like this,
	**''Location of the dispute:'' ]
	**''People involved:'' ] and ]
	**''Opinion of User:Me'' (please restrict to 100 words or less, and provide 3-5 diffs as samples; do not cite policy)
	**''Opinion of User:AnnoyingPerson'' (ditto)
	**''Proposed solution by User:SomeOutsider'' (involved parties should be hesitant about adding their own solution, and any solution like 'User:AnnoyingPerson should be banned' must be stricken).
	*Okay, that was my $.2 - comments welcome, of course. ]]] 13:54, July 15, 2005 (UTC)


	::On the ] business, I don't think you should take my (unfortunate) habit of obessing on my own edits as evidence that no one has tried to work things out with him. I am guessing this is just a case of me not supplying the proper links. (First timer on this.)

	::For evidence that people have indeed tried and failed to work things out with ], see , ] and many other pleas from more tactful and less self-obsessed editors than me. ] 17:58, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
	:::Radiant, I haven't had much experience with RFCs on ''people'', but I have had experience with article RFCs and have to say I feel they're thoroughly inadequate, mostly because they're thoroughly overlooked; most get few if any visitors. I think the RFC process can be of tremendous help in resolving article disputes, IF anybody bothers to take one on. I've begun making a habit of picking a couple of article content RFC's and trying to help them to resolutions, with some measure of success. I'm not sure that more strictures are what's needed, though -- I feel like it's a less cumbersome process than, say, mediation, and possibly more effective in certain circumstances because of it. I'm not sure even that the structure of the RFC process (again, for article content disputes) needs to be changed, but maybe there needs to be more of a centralized effort to involve editors in "patrolling" for ones they can weigh in on. There are already committees atop committees, but maybe a group of people who monitor listed RFCs and are ready to step in and help on one or two a month, say, in areas in which they have some interest. I've been thinking about this very thing for some time now. · ]<sup>]</sup> 01:25, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

	The RfC process was doubtless intended to be a way of making a user aware that the community disapproved of her actions, in the hope that that would take the place of more authoritarian, punitive processes. The trouble is that there are two sorts of RfC: those that are frivolous, malicious, or just ill-advised (see above for examples), and those that are correctly brought, and have no effect on their subjects. It's possible (perhaps more than just possible) that the existence of the former contributes to the failure of the latter, though the roots of the problem are deeper.

	The problems is that, as with the rest of the Internet, and indeed the world, there are many people who simply don't care what others think of them. ther are many reasons for this: sometimes it's a personal arrogance, sometimes an arrogance born of their adherence to a cause (religiou, political, or whatever), sometimes it's probably some form of autism — but whatever the reason, it leaves us with a problem.

	Now, I'm a philosopher; I'm good at distinguishing and explaining problems. I need rather more time and help to try to solve them. --] (] 21:12, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

	== first step towards punitive measures ==

	I placed the following warning on the RFC page: ] 06:35, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
	:''Note that an RFC is generally considered a prerequisite for , and mediation is generally considered a prerequisite for , and can impose binding solutions including a ban from wikipedia, removal of administrator priveledges, etc. Therefore, when you file an RFC, some may view it not as a simple request for comments, but as the first step towards punitive measures against an editor.''
	*But that is not really correct. Mediation is supposed to be far more informal than RFC. ]]] 13:36, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

	**FuelWagon, I can't see anything about RfC as a prerequisite for mediation on the page you link to, in fact I can't see any mention of RFC. I have also never heard of such a thing, it sounds extremely unlikely: mediation is the '''first''' step in dispute resolution, as far as I know. If I'm missing something on the page you link to, could you please point to it? If you've made a mistake, could you please remove it from the RfC page as soon as possible? It's not the kind of misconception one would like to see spread to new users. ] \| ] 13:50, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

	*** The process is fairly clearly outlined at "]". RfC is not a precursor for mediation, though a potential mediator may well want to see an RfC so he knows what the dispute is about. I think Fuelwagon should also take on board that the aims of both RfC and mediation are to resolve disputes, without punishment. A lot of people get this wrong, particularly with respect to RfC. A RfC is just a chance for both parties to outline their problems and to get third party views. Although it can be as formal as you like, an RfC can be something as simple as a single sentence outline of the dispute on ]. --]\|] 14:10, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

	well, just above, Snowspinner

	::''RfCs should be an occasion to get input on something - not an obligatory step on the way to arbcomming people.''

	So there seems to be anecdotal evidence that it is obligatory.

	I'm not sure what the absolute, spot-on wording should be. I was trying to use "generally considered" to indicate it wasn't formally required, but that there is a strong linkage. I'll use Tony's wording that "a potential mediator may well want to see an RfC" so it is more clear that is is not a hard requirement. let me know if that is still incorrect. ] 18:22, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

	I've changed it to use Tony's wording. Hopefully this is more clear that an RFC is not a formal requirement to mediation, but still indicates the effects of their linkage. The diff is . ] 18:28, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
	:We seem to be at cross-purposes. Yes, there is an informal or "soft" requirement for an RfC to be done before a request for '''arbitration'''. It's certainly dispensed with in egregious cases, but arbitrators, if you ask them, are likely to say "better do an RfC first." That doesn't have anything to do with Radiant's protest or with mine, above, where we object to your claim that RfC is required before '''mediation'''. There's no hard nor soft requirement for anything at all before mediation, it's much better to get mediation just as soon as you can. It takes long enough to find a mediator as it is, that's why it bothers me that you're making people see extra, non-existent obstacles on the path to it. I've removed your reference to mediation altogether on the project page, please see if you approve. ] \| ] 19:13, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

	::Ah, I double checked where I got that information from. says ''Where a dispute has not gone through Mediation, or the earlier steps in the dispute resolution process, the Arbitrators may refer the dispute to the Mediation Committee if it believes Mediation is likely to help.'' The first time, I misread it to say "if it hasn't gone through mediation, they'll first recommend mediation." Checking it again now, I see that I missed the ''"if it believes mediation is likely to help"'' on the end. ] 23:29, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

	:::I see no reason to reference mediation in the "warning." My understanding is that mediation is intended to be positive and RFCs are not intended as a preliminary.
	:::I'm not wild about the "warning" anyway. ] 23:34, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

	::::FuelWagon, I wonder what your point is here. You appeared to intend the RfC against me to be punitive, as evidenced by these entries on your talk page. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 23:37, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

	:::::I'm through trying to convince anyone of my ''motives''. I can't give you a CAT scan of my brain and say "See, look there, that proves what I was thinking." Everyone has already made up their mind anyway. For giggles, though, you can ask Ed and any of the other administrators to see if I ''ever'' said you should be blocked or de-admined or punished in any way. Even while I was serving time on my fourty-hour block, I never emailed him and said "SlimVirgin should be blocked too" or whatever. And if you're really bored, you can comb through the talk page archives and see that the only thing I ever actually said I expected from you was an acknowledgement to the effect of "Yeah, I, SlimVirgin, made a bad edit" and "Yeah, I accused you, FuelWagon, Duckecho, Neuroscientist, etc of some things you guys didn't actually do". There were some references to "Fonzi" in that regard, because Fonzi could never say "I'm Sorry". Whatever. Believe what you want. I don't care anymore. The only point of the warning is so that some poor sap of a greenhorn doesn't run into a problem and accidently file an RFC without knowing that some will view it as going to defcon 3, which is exactly how some people view it. ] 00:42, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
	::::Look, I'm sorry, but in the meantime, we really can't have your confused and confusing instruction on the RFC page. It's hard enough to do a proper RFC without a tripwire like that. OK, I believe you added it in good faith. But you're quoting irrelevant policies for mediation, and adding your own statement that the mediation procedure "includes an RFC" in amongst the quotes. No, it doesn't include an RFC. I'm sorry, I've tried twice to explain this politely, but you just don't seem to be listening. Your "instruction" is a mess (it doesn't help to quote if you quote irrelevant stuff). And it's factually wrong (because of the bit you added from yourself). I've removed it. ] \| ] 01:27, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

	::::::''you're quoting irrelevant policies for mediation, and adding your own statement that the mediation procedure "includes an RFC"''. What I put in the article was this:
	:::::::''"a mediator will check that other alternatives of dispute resolution have been tried." , which includes an RFC.''
	::::::"other alternatives to dispute resolution" includes an RFC, third opinion, and surveys. Or am I misreading that? I just listed RFC because it was the only one directly relevent to the RFC page.
	::::::I am not inventing a tripwire where none exists. There is a truth to what I'm trying to put in the article here. I'd appreciate it if you didn't delete the whole thing because I haven't expressed it exactly right. Yeah, the last version was "messy", but that was only because you said my paraphrase of the rules was wrong, so I tried quoting, which added a lot of text. I put a basic version in the article now, which doesn't get into all the rules, since I can't seem to explain them right. Does this version work? ] 11:53, 18 July 2005 (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.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Shortcut

WT:RFC

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:

Dispute Resolution (inactive)

This 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

For why RfC was created, see:
- Dispute resolution/Archive 1#Requests for comment

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:

@Makeandtoss, when you say "accountability", you mean "knowing who to blame for starting an RFC about removing a sentence you added", right?
I wonder if we should take quite the opposite approach, and recommend against signing RFCs in articles classifed as Misplaced Pages:Contentious topics.

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)