Misplaced Pages

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

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 15:22, 24 August 2005 editSlimVirgin (talk | contribs)172,064 editsm →Outside View by McClenon← Previous edit Latest revision as of 21:40, 24 December 2024 edit undoSoni (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers10,919 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 ]. More archives: ] ]
{{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
}}


== Deleting uncertified RFC's (again) == == RFC signer ==
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)


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)
: 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)
: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.
:*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)
:It’s not all that rare; ]. ] (]) 10:35, 10 November 2024 (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)
::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)
:*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)
: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)
:**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)
:: 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)
:*See also ], which again is a failed attempt to have an uncertified RFC deleted. ]]] 11:45, May 24, 2005 (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)
:**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)
:::: {{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)
:*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) :::::We could argue all day about how many is an "appreciable number", but we seem to agree that it actually does happen sometimes. ] (]) 17:22, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
::That is why I mentioned obscure not prevent. ] (]) 11:14, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
:::All of that was mentioned in the prior discussion. Another argument against signing an RfC is just a philosophical one: The request isn't personal, so there's nothing to sign. The requester isn't a secret, it's just not part of the request. It's like the reason that you don't sign a Misplaced Pages article when you write one. ] (]) 18:47, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
::::90% + of people who do RFCs sign them. ] (]) 19:04, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
::::Articles are not signed because they are joint work and public-facing. Also because wiki usernames are meaningless to the readership. Also because articles would be a horrible mess after many edits. None of those reasons apply to RfCs, so the analogy fails. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 00:54, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::Fair enough. There are enough other reasons not to sign a Misplaced Pages article that I should not have used it as an analogy. For me, the main reason not to sign a Misplaced Pages article is that it isn't personal, like some people believe about their RfC requests. ] (]) 18:36, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::Just woke up one day and thought I will make a non personal RFC about something I don't care about, right? ] (]) 18:43, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::RFCs can be joint work, too.
:::::I think the case you need to make is not "Under ordinary circumstances, signing an RFC is normal and desirable" but "I can hereby prove that under no circumstance whatsoever is it appropriate for an RFC question to be displayed in ] without at least the ''wrong'' username". Because that's what is suggested above: That it would be preferable to have the RFC misleadingly signed by someone who is not actually asking the RFC question ("having the statement filed by an admin for example") than to have it unsigned. ] (]) 16:33, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::Exceptions are fine, we can note those. Otherwise, simply follow common practice and sign, no-one will complain about that. ] (]) 16:38, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::::The problem isn't that nobody complains about the most common practice. The problem is that sometimes the most common practice results in more harm than benefit. ] (]) 16:44, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::::Apparently that's only in theory. Do you have some examples of such harm? ] (]) 16:46, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::Sure: I've personally felt drawn to oppose whatever is being recommended because I recognize the username in the question. I'd like to think that I'm enough of an adult to consider the question fairly or to walk away, but I'm also enough of an adult to recognize that an RFC signed by User:TeeteringOnTBAN is not going to get the same response as the same one from User:Unknown or User:Friend. How about you? Are you a paragon of virtue who is never biased by reputation and past experiences with people, or maybe you just have a hard time remembering names? ] (]) 18:53, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::Every RFC is like that in my area. ] (]) 19:06, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
:Looking at the precipitating event:
:* @], when you say "accountability", you mean "knowing who to blame for starting an RFC about removing ", right?
:* I wonder if we should take quite the opposite approach, and recommend ''against'' signing RFCs in articles classifed as ].
:] (]) 16:43, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
::Unnecessary, we have lots of RFCs without any problems, it's just the unsigned ones we complain about. ] (]) 16:47, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
:::Wrong, I never complain about unsigned RfCs (un''dated'' RfCs I will add a timestamp to), but I often complain about RfCs that are failing in some other way; sometimes I fix these up because I suspect that the filer might not understand my explanation. Examples: ]; ]; ]; ]. --] &#x1f339; (]) 18:31, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
::::That's you, we're complaining here ;) We have complained about it before, now we havin another go. ] (]) 18:35, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
::::Maybe we'll have a (signed) RFC about it. ] (]) 18:35, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
::Not sure what you are trying to ask about but I won’t be trying to remember details about more than half a year old incident and not sure what is meant with precipitating incident. Accountability as in knowing who to ask when the statement is not neutral/not representative of the discussion/etc. As for the argument that identity of opener shouldn’t affect discussion, this would be also true for everything, including even edits or discussions, so I can’t see why RfC should be a unique exception. ] (]) 19:17, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
:::Are you claiming that the RFC question is non-neutral? Here's a copy of the entire question:
:::"Should the following sentence be added to the lede?
:::{{tqb|In its investigation on 20 October 2023, Forensic Architecture concluded the blast was the result of a munition fired from the direction of Israel}}
:::"
:::If not, then what kind of "accountability" are you needing in this RFC? Or are you only saying that, hypothetically, if someone did need to have a discussion about an RFC question, then it would be unfortunate if you had to waste 30 seconds looking up the username first? I wonder how long it would take if the OP had taken you up on your advice to have an admin sign it instead. Then you'd start with the wrong user. ] (]) 19:27, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
::::Wouldna took any time at all if they signed it like everybody else does. ] (]) 19:34, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
::::I genuinely have no idea what you are trying to get at. I clearly said if it is not neutral, I did not see that any specific question has been non-neutral. 30 seconds is a long time, it should be clear without having to dig anywhere. ] (]) 19:38, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::So you think there's nothing wrong with the question, and therefore you have no need to contact the editor over it. Why exactly do you immediately need to know the editor's name again? Just personal preference? A desire for an unnecessary level of uniformity? ] (]) 15:38, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::A natural desire for transparency and accountability if necessary. ] (]) 20:28, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::::Transparency and accountability are provided by the page history. Desiring these things does not explain why you believe the username need to be immediately visible, without clicking on the page history. ] (]) 17:25, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::::The answer is obvious: Make wants to judge the RFC question by who wrote it. This is the exact reason I think RFCs should ''not'' be signed: to stop, or at least slow down, people from doing exactly that. ] (]) 18:51, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::As someone keeps pointing out tho, it is kinda easy to see who put it up. ] (]) 18:52, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::If you're on the RfC page, you can look at the page history, sure. But many people won't have had the RfC's page on their watchlists, they will arrive by some other means. Perhaps they habitually check ] etc. and from those, pick out RfCs that they are interested in. What they see on those pages is the ], terminating with a timestamp. I don't think that the lack of an optional signature will make these people say "I won't bother with that one because it's unsigned". But maybe they'll think "it's signed by my nemesis, so I'll go over there and oppose it, whatever the arguments in favour might be". --] &#x1f339; (]) 20:10, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::...as the internet has taught us, having to click (or scroll) is enough to dissuade like 90% of people. ] (]) 20:49, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::Did you seriously write "30 seconds is a long time"? {{lol}} ] (]) 18:50, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::Yes, (no pun intended) and it was not sarcastic; editors should not have to spend any amount of time looking for what in my opinion should be naturally presented.
::::::And no, the aim here is not to judge the RFC question by who wrote it; most RFC questions I have seen are in the form of "should X contain Y?" I can't see how this question can be judged based on the RFC's opener.
::::::All in all, seeing an RFC without the opener's username does not feel natural to me, just as an edit summary without one wouldn't (in this case as well it could be argued that hiding it would protect the content from supposed prejudice). ] (]) 18:50, 15 November 2024 (UTC)


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


{| class="wikitable"
: 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)
|+ Should we require all RFCs to be signed with a username?
*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)
! {{yes}}, we should require this.
**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)
! {{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)
*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)
** Then, why in the hell were you arguing the opposite at the top of this section? -- ] ] 13:31, 2005 Jun 6 (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)
**** 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)
*****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)


:Still waitin on those examples, btw. ] (]) 19:27, 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)
::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)
*****: 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)
:::Then I am not interested in your theorizing, fair's fair. ] (]) 19:35, 11 November 2024 (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)
::::You've ] that {{xt|Every RFC...in my area}} has you reacting to the reputation of the signing editor and your own past experiences with the signing editor. I wouldn't call your personal lived experiences to be "my theorizing". ] (]) 17:29, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::I would, tho. ] (]) 17:33, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
:The argument about Arabic or Hebrew usernames is still unconvincing. Does this mean we should hide editors’ names when they edit so that people don’t perceive it in a biased way? Does this mean we should hide usernames in discussions so that editors don’t also perceive their opinions in a biased way? Why do we give an RFC special treatment? ] (]) 19:41, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
::Yes, we do allow editors to hide their usernames when they edit so that people don’t perceive it in a biased way. See ]. ] (]) 15:36, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
:::Legitimate uses requires not crossing the streams. If an editor has a bias on something, and an edit history with that bias, and they use an alt account to hide from that known bias, that is not a legitimate alt account, but is pretending to be someone they are not. A SOCK violation. ] (]) 06:12, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
:“Have to waste seconds” is offensive. It takes much more than seconds, and worse, it derails your thinking. ] (]) 06:05, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
:“Some RFCs are written by more than one person …”. A multi-signed document has to be signed by each signatory, normal and standard. Suggesting that one sign for the others is a weird distraction. On important matters, three admins may be called up to close a discussion, and they do this by each signing the closing statement. At RfA, the multiple nominators each sign separately. ] (]) 06:08, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
:“Unsigned RFCs promote fairness”. No, not really, they hide the bias. The answer to concerns of unfairness, or unfair bias, is transparency. Declare the bias. Name the authors, and any other contributors, and declare any bias. ] (]) 06:10, 17 December 2024 (UTC)


This is just an info page, I think we should just amend this statement "Sign the statement with either <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki> (name, time and date) or <nowiki>~~~~~</nowiki> (just the time and date)." so as to clarify that it is usual to give the name version unless there is some good reason not to, which reason should be given somewhere. ] (]) 20:04, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
******I am more than happy to look after the uncertified RFCs, if they want deleting. ] 20:46, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
*******Thanks :) I can do them myself, too, as of this morning. ]]] 07:38, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)


*I just added a note that a person who is the subject of the RfC should not delete it, but should allow or request an neutral admin to do so. This seems obvious, but a recent example shows that it ought to be spelled out. ] ] 17:50, 3 August 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)
::It's just an info page. ] (]) 15:44, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
:::So? We don't need instruction creep on info pages, either. ] (]) 17:24, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
::::Info is not instruction. ] (]) 17:29, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::Telling editors that they should {{xt|give the name version unless there is some good reason not to, which reason should be given somewhere}} is instruction, not info. ] (]) 17:30, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::It's info, y'know, cos it's an info page. ] (]) 17:33, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::::I think you are reading too much into the label at the top of the page. ] (]) 17:49, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::::No, just getting ready for the RFC is all. ] (]) 18:01, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
I’ve opened several RfCs that were signed with just a timestamp, and no one’s made a fuss about it. Since both the ] and this one were triggered by BilledMammal not signing his RfCs with his username, if he is creating non-neutral or problematic RfCs to the point where he should be required to sign with his username for purposes of accountability or transparency, then there’s a more significant issue at play here than simply whether or not the RfC is signed with a username. ] (]) 23:49, 12 November 2024 (UTC)


:There's also this handy userscript called ] that allows editors to click on the timestamp of a comment and it'll bring them directly to the diff of the comment. ] (]) 23:54, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
==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.''' &mdash; ]]]] 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)
}}


<!-- ] 19:01, 18 December 2024 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1734548467}}
:::'''Object''' the process is annoying enough without adding yet another layer of annoyance to a human editor having to fight a bot. There are plenty of edit disputes that go on for months, plural, and having a previous RFC is evidence that an editor, or group of editors, are not going to resolve the problem. Pushing things "down the memory hole" for the sake of a clean page is unwiki. ] 17:38, 18 July 2005 (UTC)


Should the words "or <nowiki>~~~~~</nowiki> (just the time and date)" be removed from statement 5 of ]?
So what's the current plan? I see some article disputes that have long-since been resolved. There's no link to an archive to move them to, which we used to have. Are we just deleting them? -] 11:35, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
:I agree, policy here is now unclear. The ] is effectively closed and should probably be archived, but we've currently got ] trying to speedy delete it. -- ] 11:58, 30 July 2005 (UTC)


] (]) 18:18, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
==time you split==
page big time to fix. rfc of people and rfc of content and rfc of other.


===Survey===
== Splitting article RfCs by topic ==
* '''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===
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)
], 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)
*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)


: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)
: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 ] (])
{{abot}}


== ArbCom limits on RFC comments ==
*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)


Just FYI:
::The reason I suggested splitting is to make the RFCs more active, to draw more attention to them. ] 13:53, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
::I would support splitting. &mdash; ] ] 08:50, 15 Jun 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).
: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)


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'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)


== How long is the result of an RFC valid for? ==
: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)


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)
**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)


:until you can find a reason to argue that consensus has changed or will change somehow. maybe a new piece of evidence, or the previous RFC had only local consensus, or nobody is around who will raise the fact that a previous RFC answered it already ] (]) 01:40, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
I'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)
::"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.
:Dan, this looks good. Thank you. ]
::@], 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)
== Misplaced Pages talk:Content labeling proposal ==

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)

:Okay, I worked it out all by myself. ] 22:02, 20 Jun 2005 (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)
:::There haven't been, so I removed it. ] 12:19, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

(PS &mdash; 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. &middot; ]<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 &mdash; 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)
:::::::I'm OK with that one. ] | ] 13:33, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
::::::::Cool. ] 13:59, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Excuse me if I un-indent this thread; I can't think this "deeply".

FuelWagon, you wrote in the project page:

:a mediator will check that other alternatives of dispute resolution have been tried." , which includes an RFC

This is incorrect. I've been on the ] from the beginning, and this was never a requirement for Mediators. It is within our discretion to take on a Mediation, even if users haven't jumped through all the hoops.

Perhaps you are misinterpreting the ] process. In my interpretation, one should try the simplest, most "low-level" means of resolving a dispute. But I do not think this requires users to get bogged down in paperwork. You got a problem, come to me (I say this to everyone). If I can't solve it for you, I'll refer you to someone who can - or even form a special team if that's what it takes.

If you are interesting in improving ] or other articles, all well and good. But if you go after other contributors demanding apologies (which is uncivil) or start messing around with policy pages (which is disruptive), I'm going to have to ask you to leave. The choice is not a difficult or unreasonable: please pick one and stick to it. ] 12:15, July 18, 2005 (UTC)


:::''"if you go after other contributors demanding apologies (which is uncivil)"''
::Uhm, wait a minute, now I'm totally confused. When you stepped in as mediator on July 12, you blocked me because I swore at SlimVirgin a bunch of time and didn't apologize. I had actually started going through the talk page to remove all my personal attacks, but you blocked me, "unrepentant" personal attacks. And the example behaviour you cited was me saying "I won't apologize". I assumed I was blocked because I wouldn't apologize.

:::''"messing around with policy pages (which is disruptive),"''
::Ed, could you assume good faith on my part just once? After my block for unrepentant personal attacks against SlimVirgin expired, I opened a request for comments on SlimVirgin's edit and her comments on talk against other editors. My view was she did a edit (An out of the blue editor making a large number of changes containing many errors on a page marked "controversial" and in Mediation) At first you tentatively endorsed the RFC as mediator saying she moved "too far, too fast" and then you withdrew that remark and suggested the RFC was "gaming the system" and "bullying". Several editors who had been working on the Terri Shiavo page prior to her edit supported the RFC. But most outside comments ignored her edits/comments and spoke specifically to the RFC being abusive and an attempt to take someone to the "wikipedia woodshed". Since no one outside the article was actually commenting on SlimVirgin's edit/comments, I withdrew the RFC. I see this morning that you have also another block on my account, citing "harrassment of SlimVirgin", "gaming the system", and representing her edits as "reckless" and "personal attacks". Since my block expired, the only interaction I've had with SlimVirgin was to answer a question she directly asked me above. I haven't emailed her or modified her talk page except to inform her of the RFC. I filed a request for comments about her edits. That was it. And it wasn't to "demand an apology" from her. After her edit, the talk page pretty much exploded and everyone had taken sides. The only reason the edit warring stopped was 3RR slowed things down, and then you stepped in as mediator and blocked me, and later locked the page for a while. But there was never any actual agreement about anything. Peace was achieved by force alone. I filed the RFC because I wanted to get some outside, uninvolved comments about SlimVirgin's edit so that some sort of actual agreement could be reached rather than working under the constant threat of blocking and page locking from the mediator. So, I am not "messing around with the policy pages", I am trying to warn other editors who may be unfamiliar with the system that filing an RFC may be considered bullying, harrassment, and gaming the system, and it might even get their account considered for suspension. ] 16:13, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

:This is getting silly. You're trying to interpret why the people who endorsed my summary did so. The fact is that the Schiavo talk page "exploded," as you put it, with your personal attacks, and it's not the only one to have done so. Your calling people "you arrogant cuss" isn't confined to me or to the Schiavo talk page. You haven't apologized for the language, either to me or (so far as I know) to anyone else, or for having filed an inappropriate, and arguably bad-faith, RfC. Changing your attitude would be more helpful than changing the policy page. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 17:22, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

::''You haven't apologized''
::That's the first time you mentioned it. I assumed a 40-hour block was enough to restore integrity. Since this is getting off the topic of RFC, I'm forking this thread over to your talk page. (continued in a moment.) ] 18:31, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether I should butt in, but just a thought, maybe the best thing would be for everyone to just move on to something else. Or start over. ] 02:41, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

== Article naming & popular culture ==

Misplaced Pages articles on popular music and other popular entertainment are seething with naming problems (not to mention poor English, poor formatting, and the worst kind of fanzine-gush and journalistic hyperbole). The problem is that these articles are often watched over and defended by their creators, who are completely uninterested in either correct English or Misplaced Pages style, and whose aggression, belligerence, and determination makes life very difficult for any editor trying to clean things up.

Japanese and Korean-based articles are a particular problem, as editors often insist that the typography of CD sleeves is followed exactly &mdash; so if an album title is printed in capitals on the sleeve, it has to be that way in Misplaced Pages, etc.

There are times when I find myself thinking: "To hell with it; who cares how articles on music that I dislike are written and presented..." &mdash; but whether I like the stuff or not, whether I think the subject is interesting or not, is irrelevant. Still, I'm spending far too much time dealing with this instead of with more productive matters; does anyone have any ideas about how to improve the situation? --] (] 07:31, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
*For article content, no - that's something that has to be decided on case-by-case. Article titles, however, are easy, and we do have some standards for that (e.g. no all-caps). We can protect them against being moved, if necessary. ]]] 09:59, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

::yes, I thought so. the trouble is that most experienced editors steer clear of these articles (and I can't say that I blame them). At the moment I'm fighting a depressing battle against a few editors (mainly {{user|Ultimate Star Wars Freak}} and {{User|OmegaWikipedia}}, who seem to be working in close concert}}), who simply revert wholesale my attempts to bring articles into line with accepted style (use of surnames, spelt-out numbers, correct use of quotation marks, naming conventions for song titles, etc.), and who respond with belligerence to my attempts to reason with them. One or two other editors seem to have run into them too (to judge by their Talk pages), but no-one seems able to dent their self-assuredness and determination to have things their own way. And that pattern can be found throughout this area of Misplaced Pages. Perhaps we could split them off into "Wikipop", and have done with them... --] (] 11:41, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

:::Wikipop -- sounds good, but I don't know how feasible it is.
:::Another possibility: Find an appropriate tag to label the article. That way, it's clear that the article isn't up to snuff, but hopefully it won't bring about a fight. ] 02:36, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

You haven't seen these kids in action. They revert ''everything'' that changes their style; they insist on incorrect naming of articles (see ] for an example, in which one of them cuts and pastes a move just to get back to the wrong name), on incorrect internal links, numerals, wrongly-formatted lists, grammatical mistakes, etc. A template would be reverted with all the rest. --] (] 08:52, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

:For some users, it seems like we need a big stick or a police patrol.
:Maybe whenever the validation feature is active, that will help. ] 14:18, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

::One thing that would probably help is the presence of more editors; looking at their Talk pages, it seems that every so often an editor stumbles across one of the articles, corrects it, and gets drawn into a battle with the fans who have taken ownership. In the past, the editor has finally given up; I'll not do so, but I'm finding myself bogged down in ridiculous edit wars. The presence of more editors on the scene might get through to them that I'm not some rogue editor with peculiar ideas (as they say that they believe, and perhaps genuinely do), but that their position genuinely is untenable. --] (] 16:25, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

:::I'll look in on one of your if you'll look in at the category discussion on ]. ] 16:34, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

::::Maureen, please don't get fooled by Mel. Most of the issues are content and style disputes. Like he want to remove song headers and put the time of a song at 3' 39'' instead of 3:39. Isn't that confusing? I think a WikiPop possibility would be good, that way, everyone would be happy. We try to compromise with Mel, but he always insults us, like just above he calls us "kids". We try to talking peacefully and he rants and doesnt listen to our points. Please remember there are always two sides to each story ] 20:17, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

You might want to look at ], ], ], ], ], and ]. In the first five, the majority of the changes he's reverting (as with a long list of articles that he reverts) are to corrections of Wikilinks, bringing headings into Misplaced Pages style by removing excess capitals, changing a list made using HTML to one using Wiki-bullets, and so on. On the last one, he has now twice moved the page by cutting and pasting, despite my explanation that this isn't allowed, and my advice concerning how he should go about arguing for the move. A glance at my Talk-page discussions with this editor and one or two others involved, will demonstrate the truth of the matter regarding our interactions.

And now I suppose I have to go and look at ]. --] (] 21:23, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

:::::My beef isn't what the caps. If you want to do that go for it. They just get changed back when reverting. Mel is guilty of doing the same exact thing. Mel is also using inconsistent notation with normal music articles and having tantrums when we point out his errors. I moved the page because Mel should not have moved it in the first place and his move was borderline vandalism. ] 21:30, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

#You're reverting every change that I make.
#You've just done so again on a number of articles, violating 3RR to add to your vandalism in reverting corrections.
#Please provide the diffs for my tantrums; I could do with a laugh. --] (] 21:51, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

== /Gabrielsimon - certified properly? ==

The RFC on ] has been certified properly. Four users have signed in the section ]. This is the standard place for users to certify an RFC. It is contained within the RFC - it is not "somewhere else." Asking other editors to look there, as I did in this edit summary - - is completely appropriate. Because this RFC has been certified, standard procedure dictates that it should now be listed on ] under the heading '''Approved pages - have met the two person threshold'''. ] ] 20:58, 21 July 2005 (UTC)


when it was dreamguys second one, there were three sigs on that page, in the right place, and it still got deleted. thus i thought iot had to be directly on this page.
] 21:02, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
*I don't know what that RFC looked like at the time it was deleted, but the certifying signatures definitely go in an RFC under the heading "Users certifying the basis for this dispute". They have to be right there, not just nearby, to count. ] ] 21:12, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

==do not take lightly==
There is nothing on the RFC page that supports the imperative to editors to "not take an RFC lightly". The page describes an RFC as something to be used to get comments from outside readers, to break a deadlock, resolve a dispute, etc. There is nothing punitive or negative in this description that would beseech the editor to take an RFC any more serious than that. That some editors view an RFC as punitive is fact supported by a number of comments on the RFC talk page to change the dispute resolution system so that RFC's aren't viewed as part of teh punitive system,

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

but it is not the design or intent of an RFC to do anything other than get outside comments, break deadlocks, and resolve disputes. There is nothing on the RFC page describing an RFC that supports the imperative that an RFC is "not to be taken lightly". This conflicts with everything else that the RFC pages says about RFC's. And this imperitive to editors to take an RFC as something more than it is is unsupported. Please stop inserting it. ] 19:58, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

:Oh, the imperative in question is shown . ] 20:00, 25 July 2005 (UTC)


:In theory it is should be used that way; in practice, it is seen as punitive, and frankly is sometimes a step towards an Arbitration Committee hearing. There's no point in denying the reality of practice, regardless of the ideals of the procedure. ]<sup><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></sup> 20:09, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

:Well, the usage of the page is mixed. When articles are listed here, it really is the case most of the time that was is being sought out is new eyes to help out with an article that's having problems. Articles tend not to take offense; their feelings are not easily hurt. Editors are a different matter entirely. Putting an article up for RFC can indeed be taken lightly. Putting an editor up for RFC is generally (and correctly) taken as a request for (at least) chastisement. --]] 20:14, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

::Right. Article RfCs are seen pretty neutrally; editor RfCs are seen as a negative statement about the editor. ]<sup><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></sup> 20:18, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

::''a request for (at least) chastisement.'' Jpgordon, where does it say this on the RFC page? I've read it a number of times now, and the description says nothing of the sort. That people take an RFC as chastizement is their reaction, not a function of the description. This (chastisement) is a combative view of requests for comments, not supported by the description of RFC's. If this view is correct, then the RFC description needs some serious rework. Otherwise, the view needs to be changed, not the page. I made a suggestion in a thread above that an RFC ought to be completely removed from any punitive measures process, to the point where you cannot even mention an RFC when you're in arbitration. This would allow people to comment more objectively without fearing some punitive repercussions further down the road. But in any event, the current description of an RFC doesn't say anything that supports the idea of it being punitive. That appears to be a cultural norm in wikipedia. So, either the RFC descrption needs to be brought in line with what everyone thinks an RFC is, or the culture should be shifted to reflect what an RFC really is. ] 20:37, 25 July 2005 (UTC)


::''My understanding is that mediation is intended to be positive and RFCs are not intended as a preliminary.''

::''the aims of both RfC and mediation are to resolve disputes, without punishment. A RfC is just a chance for both parties to outline their problems and to get third party views.

There is nothing in the wikipedia policy towards RFC's that say they are any more serious than a way to request comments. Everything written about RFC's says they're for resolving disputes, non punitive, informal, blah, blah, blah. Inserting a line that says "Do not take lightly" changes the policy, and gives the editor nothing to base their decision on. 'well, I just want a comment, but this says "don't take lightly", but it doesn't say how to take it seriously, I just want a comment, so how do I file a request for comment any more lightly than by filing a request for comment' You have changed policy from "an rfc is just a request for comments, informal, non punitive" to "an rfc is all that, but you must not take it lightly". And you give a new editor unfamiliar with the system no yardstick to measure against as to what is "lightly", which will do nothing but discourage RFC's out of some unknown, unexplained boogeyman. ''You cannot have it both ways.'' Either an RFC is really an informal, non punitive, request for comments, or it is something to be taken as a very serious endeavor. ] 20:21, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
*For editors, it is 100% the latter. For articles, it's 100% the former. --]] 20:28, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

:It was FuelWagon who added that RfCs are perceived as the first step toward arbitration and possibly punitive action. I've added that filing an RfC shouldn't be done lightly, which FW keeps deleting.

:The reason I added this is that I've recently seen three RfCs filed where there had been no prior attempt, or an inadequate one, at dispute resolution, and the RfCs were deleted because of that, but not before causing considerable trouble and wasting time. One was FuelWagon's, and there have been two since then. It's important that editors understand that other steps must be tried first, and don't jump to the RfC option as a first step. It's also important that they understand that RfCs can have serious consequences for all parties, and may sometimes backfire and become RfCs on the nominator. For all those reasons, advising editors not to go into the process lightly is good advice. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 20:29, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

::''causing considerable trouble and wasting time ... RfCs can have serious consequences '' All of this is part of the culture of wikipedia and how editors react to an RFC. none of it is actually in the description of what an RFC is. Either the description needs to be updated, or the culture needs to be realigned to match the description. The description of RFC's describes nothing like what you are saying. ] 20:41, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
:::That's because you keep deleting it. Regardless of how you want it to be, we also have to pay attention to how it is. --]] 20:55, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

::::If it is that way, fine, then the RFC page ought to be changed to say what exactly an individual RFC is for. Saying "An rfc is informal, nonpunitive, way to resolve disputes" in one section and then saying "do not take it lightly" in another section, just doesn't make sense. It doesn't give the editor anything to judge what is lightly and what is sufficient for an RFC. if an RFC is really an informal request for comments, then it is by definition "light". If it really is a formal process for ''chastizement'', then it ought to say that so that "lightly" has some sort of context. As it is, it is an oxymoron, two statements at complete odds against each other. ] 21:30, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

:::*RfCs are becoming frequently used for revenge. Sometimes it is revenge against a particular disfavored edit of an article. Most times it is revenge against a particular editor whose attitude or techniques one dislikes. There is no punishment to the initiator for not attempting to meet the terms of the RfC. And there is no punishment to other editors for misleading or lying "certifications" or other statements that were done solely for revenge. Other editors who have no knowledge of that particular dispute chime in as their opportunity to get even. As long as this is the case, it is the '''perfect tool for revenge''': lots of harm to the target with no consequences towards the initiator or other editors. --] 21:34, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

::::RFC's should be designed for resolving something between editors who have come to a deadlock about an issue. They should be designed for editors operating in good faith but who completely disagree on some dispute. Since RFC's would assume editors operating in good faith, they should be designed so that "revenge" isn't possible by editors acting in bad faith when they file the rfc. This would mean that RFC's cannot be punitive, they cannot be used in arbitration, they cannot be referred to by an arbiter or whoever saying "well, you failed this RFC, so we're going to ban you" or something. And RFC should be nothing more than an informal request for comments and it shouldn't be able to go any further than that. As long as your dispute resolution system makes it an implied/assumed/suggested/whatever step to arbitration, then you have a vengeance system. What the RFC page describes is an informal, non-punitive way to resolve disputes. But the way RFC's are designed into the system, they can be step 1 in some punitive dispute, and therefore vengeful. If someoen files an RFC in bad faith, the editor ought to be able to ignore it and nothing bad should come of it. The whole point is for resolving disputes between editors working in good faith, but completely deadlocked on some issue. If they're not acting in good faith, then some alternative is needed. But what the RFC page describes and the "vengeance" system you just described do not match and one of them needs to be adjusted. If the pages ''says'' its an informal system for getting outside comments, but an RFC is used for vengeance, then there is something in the design of the system that doesn't match what the description says it is. My experience with RFC's outside of wikipedia have always been for informal comments, I'm not sure how it got turned into a vengeance system on wikipedia, but if that's the case, then the page ought to reflect the reality of the system, or the system ought to be changed to match the actual description of what an RFC is supposed to be. ] 21:51, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

::*You are correct. It is a catch 22: an RfC designed to simply get comments happens on talk pages already. A simple dispute mechanism needs no rules such as certification. Also, as you state, a true dispute mechanism means that anyone can ignore the RfC and nothing would come of it. --] 22:00, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

:::::''nothing would come of it''. Well, that's not true. If a bunch of editors are acting in good faith but have become have become embroiled in an edit war/dispute/whatever, then a number of comments from outside editors who have no relationship to the article/editors in question could snap them out of their deadlock. The idea is to have a piece of the dispute resolution system for editors working in good faith but at a deadlock around some issue/editor/whatever. Outside comments should snap good faith editors out of their deadlock. it will likely accomplish nothing if an editor is acting in bad faith. And a bad faith editor needs to be dealt with in a different system/approach. ] 22:44, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

:::But, of course, everyone wants something to come of an RfC. So then you have a revenge system, not a dispute system. --] 22:00, July 25, 2005 (UTC)


:::::Uhm, well, no, not ''everyone''. If that's the case, then wikipedia ought to get rid of RFC's immediately. If a disagreement has been unable to find resolution on a talk page(s), then an RFC would be a good way to bring in some outside, unbiased editors to give a quick opinion about soemthing. For a page rfc, this might bring in some editors who aren't involved in a long-standing edit war and who can bring some unbiased commments. For a user rfc, this could bring in some unbiased editors who can bring in some unbiased comments about the editor. In either case, if the editor(s) involved are acting in good faith, then a number of comments from outside observers might snap them out of their deadlock and some sort of resolution might be possible. If the editor(s) are acting in bad faith, then the RFC is useless and its time to move to step 2, whatever that might be. My point is that it is only a vengeance system in part because it is designed as a possible first step to arbitration/punitive measures, in part because people are using it for veangeance, and in part because ''it is designed that way''. See an alternative . ] 22:16, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

::::And thus the requirement for two editors involved in the same dispute to certify an RfC on an individual -- at least it takes two people to keep a Revenge for Comment alive. I'd be half-tempted to push to get that threshold increased to three. Mind you, in most cases, an RfC is just a bitchfest, and the subject of an RfC might be well advised simply to ignore it; let ''other'' people do the commenting and responding. But I don't think I could do that either. --]] 22:11, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

:::::The problem isn't with the number of certifiers, the problem is that the system is punitive and therefore can be used in bad faith. If the RFC system isn't punitive, then a bad faith RFC can be simply ignored. ] 22:19, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

===Do not take lightly, but make distinctions===
I think that a caution to Wikipedians that any process should not be taken lightly is reasonable. Some Wikipedians take formal processes lightly, and some do not.

There is a distinction, as I see it, between an RfC about article content, and an RfC about editor conduct. The latter '''should''' be far more formal, and should not only not be taken lightly, but should be "taken heavily". The procedures for an RfC about article content and an RfC about user conduct are completely different. In either data modeling or business process engineering, this implies that there are different business rules. This means that it is misleading to call them by the same name. An RfC about user conduct ''is'' meant to be punitive, or at least a prior step to punitive action.

It might be useful to use different names for what are really two very different sorts of inquiries.
] 04:13, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

==disclaimer rewrite==

I've attempted another rewrite of this disclaimer, in light of recent events. The diff is . ] 19:25, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

==example user RFC instructions==
I've tweaked the instructions on the "example user" RFC. The diff is available . Since an RFC is viewed as a tool for revenge by some and since it can be a soft requirement for entering arbitration, I changed the instructions to say a user RFC is for one specific user. Looking at all the archived RFC's, only one user RFC was against two users, and I found that RFC to be highly questionable. This also ought to help prevent an "RFC within an RFC" from occurring, which also happened on the two-user RFC. The other piece added was to clarify that there are three sections (statement of dispute, response, outside comments) and users signing/voting/endorsing one section should not edit the other sections. The two-user RFC, by the end, had people who were endorsing the RFC also putting statements into the "response" section, disputing the views of users who posted in teh "outside comment" section. This didn't help resolve any dispute, it only helped to widen who was involved in the dispute. Finally, the bottom of the RFC says, all discussion should go to the talk page, and I added a clarification to say, no, really, all discussion should go to talk. Everytime I've seen threaded replies occur on an RFC, it only escalated the dispute, rather than resolve it. The idea that all responses should go to talk is intended to at least give everyone some space on the RFC page to state their side fo things without the opposite side getting in their face about it. ] 14:53, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

== Added requirements for user conduct RFCs ==

Several weeks ago, this section was added:

<nowiki>===User conduct RfC===</nowiki>

:* ''For disputes over user conduct, before requesting community comment, '''at least two people''' should have contacted the user on their talk page, or the talk pages involved in the dispute, and failed to resolve the problem. '''Any RfC not accompanied by diffs showing that two users tried and failed to resolve the same dispute will be deleted after 48 hours.''' The diffs should not simply show evidence of the dispute itself, but should show attempts to find a resolution or compromise. The two users certifying the dispute must be the same users who were involved in the attempt to resolve it. (However, an RfC subject to deletion for lack of evidence should not normally be deleted by an editor whose conduct it is discussing, but rather by a neutral Admin.)''
:* ''An RFC is considered a soft requirement for entering Arbitration, which can bring punitive actions against an editor. However, do not open an RFC simply to better your odds at getting into arbitration and punish another editor. An RFC is intended to operate in and of itself as a means to resolve a dispute. An RFC is not arbitration application paperwork. An RFC is a tool for resolving a dispute. Use it as such.''

There was no vote or discussion that I am aware of, and in addition to some instruction creep, this adds a requirement for diffs. I don't think such a requirement is called for, because it has the effect of stifling discussion. In some cases there may not be any clear diffs, as when discussion occured via email or IRC. I removed the section from the project page and invite discussion here.

The original purpose of the certification mechanism, where two users must certify, was to reduce the volume of frivilous RFCs from vandals and trolls. It was not intended to make RFC a mechanism of last resort. RFCs serve a purpose in that they provide a central point of discussion. People will discuss things they're upset about, either here, or at the village pump, or the administrator's noticeboard, or on the mailing list. Let's continue to have RFC be a suitable forum for somewhat less formal discussion, and leave the diffs and evidence-gathering to RFAr where it is more appropriate. ] Co., ] 18:39, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
] Co., ] 18:39, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

:I agree with the removal. ] ] 04:19, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

:Also agree with the removal. The requirement could just be to have certification by 2 real distinct editors - for the basis of a legitimate Request for Discussion of the matter, only.. --] 19:13, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

== RFC has been split! ==

The RFCs on article content had been split a while ago among nine topic areas. These have now been moved to subpages. This will allow experts in a certain area to keep that subpage on their watchlist, and contribute to what they know best. There is also a central page that transcludes them all. Please comment here, and tell us if you think the current subject areas are too narrow, broad, overlapping, confusing, or if any are missing. ]]] 08:22, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

:"Requests for comment/All" does not indicate the topics. ] ] 16:39, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
*Ah, I see the problem... the {{tl|RFCheader}} uses the PAGENAME string, so it doesn't work on /All. It should have a parameter instead. I'll fix it tomorrow if nobody else has by then. ]]] 19:18, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

:Also, on the one hand, we can now categorize the topic sections. But on the other hand, it splits the people RFCs and users must now go to multiple pages to start the RFC. ] ] 17:03, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
*It's one extra click for people filing an RFC. On the other hand, it now allows people to watchlist the section(s) they are interested in; that wasn't feasible before. More comments welcome, of course; I was just being bold but would like to hear what people think. Or we could always try it out for a week or two and see if it's useful or awkward. ]]] 19:17, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

:Damn. A bunch more pages I need to find to add to my watchlist. --] 04:37, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

==Maintenance collaboration==

I've nominated the RFC page at ]. ] ] 16:59, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

== Request for Comment regarding Biff Rose entry, and User:willmcw ==

I have had some issues with willmcw and the edits he reverts on the Biff Rose page. As it stands it is frozen with eidts I agree with. I ask that people research the lyrics of Biff Rose, and his websites, which include many of the offending racist and anti semitic statements as well as the lyrics from some of his songs. It is important to get a whole overview beyond that of Rose himself.

I will abide by the findings, however they play out. I would ask that willmcw would no longer post on my user page as he is insulting and making me out to be something I am not. It effects my relation with other wikipedia users. Thanks] 07:30, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
*Hello. I have witnessed several of these "edits" and let's be clear: Espinola removed a significant number of cleanup tags I had placed in the process of migrating the old cleanup archives to the new ones. Willmcw reverted many of those back to their proper place. If any thing, there needs to be a RfC on espinola himself, just see ] for more on this. — ] (]) 16:40, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

== Inappropriate Signatures ==

There is a current RfAr concerning the complaint that a user has an inappropriate signature. (At least, the summary says that that is the issue, but there seem to other complaints about the user's conduct.) An RfAr seems to be a drastic step to deal with a complaint about a signature. Should inappropriate signatures be dealt with under inappropriate user names, or should there be a separate section of this page? ] 11:24, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
*I'd say it's part of user conduct. Only, of course, if you've asked the user and that didn't help. The issue doesn't come up often enough to warrant its own section, and user''name'' conflicts are usually about simple vandalism and impersonation attempts. ]]] 11:29, August 10, 2005 (UTC)


==The time limit used for Uncertified RFCs==

:By the way, is anyone aware of the rationale for choosing '''48 hours''' as the time limit? Perhaps '''72 hours''' or greater would be the more appropriate time limit for certification, so that people can actually notice an Rfc before the time has already been called. This important, since not just any user can notice, research, and get an Rfc certified... other actual parties to be involved in a similar dispute with the user have to notice -- it could therefore take a while for them to become aware, especially if they don't log on every day, or is the Rfc process only designed for situations where disputes involve dozens of users?

:Users are able to build Rfcs in their own userspace (i've seen it happening), perhaps calling people to get their Rfc certified before they move it to Misplaced Pages: namespace... I don't know, perhaps this is standard practice, or just smart, but I think of it more as an undesirable reaction to the time limit than a good practice, as it limits the amount of comment... Instead of '''delete RFCs after 48 hours''', I think the rule should be made '''de-list RFCs after 48 hours''', with an option to re-list, provided the party re-listing
is also certifying the listing, but do not delete the pages unless they were just patent nonsense... --] 19:28, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't have much of an opinion about the time limit. The important thing is to have a mechanical means of delisting material that is clearly just a single user's grudge. ] Co., ] 20:01, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

:I thought the practice was to delist and not to delete. ] ] 02:23, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
*The rationale behind it is that one should research the matter and have a second opinion before posing the matter to the community. So yes, starting an RFC in userspace is a good idea. In theory it prevents such RFCs as ] is an idiot, and gets them removed swiftly if they don't have backing (and yes, they generally are deleted). '''However''', that's the theory behind it, and in fact it's not a workable system. To my knowledge there are presently ''seven'' mediation-type systems, of which two are in fact working (RFAR and 3O), and the other five (this one, RFM, TINMC, WMI and M2005) are not. The latter five should be merged into some workable form. I believe the entire category of user-complains is generally about intra-user squabbles, and requires a different procedure than RFC - at present it's simply "say bad things about a user and see who agrees" and only rarely constructive. ]]] 07:50, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

::This is a minor point, but I think that we have one pre-mediation system, five mediation-type systems, and one judicial system. Of them, three are working, and four are not. The three that are working are RfC, as a pre-mediation system, 3O, as an informal mediation system, and RfAr, which is judicial. I agree that the formal mediation systems are not working, and would be interested to know what exactly is wrong with them. ] 12:03, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
*I am not convinced that an RFC on a person does give productive results; generally, its subject either ignores it, or states why he thinks the certifiers are wrong. If I am wrong in this, please point me to some RFCs that had a productive response.
:* I believe that merely by providing a suitable forum for users to criticise each other, RFCs serve a purpose. Before we had RFCs, people would post similar critical material all over the Wiki, most often at RFA (in the form of de-adminship requests), or at the Village Pump, or at ]. While it is most unusual for the subject of an RFC to make substantive changes in their editing pattern as a result of the RFC, a purpose is nonetheless served. ] Co., ] 13:54, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
*Why all mediations don't work? I guess you'd have to ask the mediators. But generally it seems to boil down to lack of enforceability. Whenever editors are courteous and friendly, there isn't need for mediation. Whenever they're ''not'', they are unlikely to listen. ]]] 12:32, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
:* Mediation rarely works, either at Misplaced Pages or elsewhere. It does not work here because the mediators are not taken seriously; as a group they are not seen as being community leaders whose insight and judgement are among the best of those at Misplaced Pages. There are various reasons for this, many of them historical. The mediators do not act as a unified group; they lack strong leadership, and as a result do not speak with a single voice. Part of the problem IMO is that they have accepted intractable cases which they should have left to others. Part of the problem is that their confidentiality standards make it difficult for them to take proper credit for those disputes where they have had a positive influence. ] Co., ] 13:54, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

== Comments on individual users - how is it supposed to work? ==

A translation of ] was transferred to svwiki some time ago, and I have a few questions regarding how it is supposed to function.

* If I opened the RfC, can others change the description that I made? What if others have already signed it?
* Can the person whose conduct is questioned, change or add his statement after it is posted? What if others have already signed the previous version, who might not like a new addition?
* Is it possible to sign at several places? What if an "outside view" too me sounds very relevant, but I have already signed in the first section?
* This question is relevant, only if it is possible to sign more than once. The notion that you should not edit in a section if you signed a summary in others - does this mean that if I signed the first description of the persons behaviour (or even wrote the first version of it), can I not sign in the section for "outside views"?

I am extremely grateful for explanations on how it is supposed to work. Trial and error is fine, but if we can learn as much as possible from enwiki that is great. Thanks. / ] 10:15, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

*This is not necessarily a good system, and it will likely be reworked in the next few weeks. Anyway, to answer your questions - people should never ''change'' existing text in an RFC, only ''add'' to it (obviously fixing typoes is allowed, as is adding links or extra examples etc). Any ''substantial'' addition to a paragraph that people have already signed for should go in another section - you cannot assume that people also agre with that part.
*You can sign in multiple places and endorse multiple views. This is common. They are generally not mutually exclusive. Note that the whole point of RFC is not to get many people to endorse things - the point is to get outside opinions and see what consensus is and what can be done about undesired behavior (if any). This is precisely one of the reasons why the current system isn't good.
*I don't really understand the point of your last question but the answer is no, per ] and ] a bureaucracy people aren't forbidden to edit or sign anywhere in an RFC.
*HTH! ]]] 10:25, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

::It does, thanks! Regarding my last question I was thinking about the repeated instruction that you should not edit more than one section. ''This is a summary written by users who dispute this user's conduct. Users signing other sections ("Response" or "Outside views") should not edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.'' etc. I understand that it says "should not" not "must not". I was wondering if "edit in a section" here referres to writing summaries, or also signing to agree with other people's summaries.
::We have had some kind of RfC for a while, but pretty much without any form at all. Generally, it has ended in discussions where the antagonists just continue to quarrel and in the end, no one else bothers to read the page. As I have understood the point of this form, it is to keep the different sides separate and make them explain their views rather than argue with each other. / ] 10:56, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

:::I think that the rule about not ''editing'' other sections can be understood as a rule against censoring or "refactoring" a view with which you disagree. The originator may not edit the defense presented by the subject. The subject may not edit the statement by the originator. With regard to third views, it makes sense that they should only be edited by the originating third party. It also makes perfect sense that anyone can ''sign'' any number of views. They can even sign views that are inconsistent, but then someone may notice that. ] 11:56, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

==Splitting up==

I disagree with all the splitting up and subpages. This page used to be simple -- one page. Now it's scattered. ] ] 19:35, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
*People that prefer the old layout can still use ]. The splitting allows people versed in a subject area to watchlist that particular area and keep track of developments. ]]] 11:56, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
**The old format allowed for easy watchlisting, while /All doesn't. --] 19:44, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
***Only if you're interested in every single issue, which most people aren't (and even then, you could watchlist all subpages; they're not that high-traffic, and many people have 100+ pages watchlisted anyway). However, you could use Special:Recentchanges. ]]] 08:07, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

Or we could return things to the way they were. ] ] 11:46, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

:So, how should we resolve this, have an RFC about the RFC page? ] ] 15:39, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

::A meta-RfC. Yes. Fun for logicians, and reasonable for other Wikipedians. ] 18:44, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
*I'm not quite sure what the problem is. The RFC page was getting rather large, and like several other pages that had grown large in the past, has been split. Basically, this provides extra options for users, with no loss of earlier options: people who had RFC watchlisted can now simply watchlist the subpages (yes, I know there's eight of them, but most watchlists are so large anyway that people won't notice the difference). People who wish to visit a single page with all requests together can still do so, at the /all page. I've had a couple of good reactions, and most people simply adapt, watchlist what they're interested in, and keep going. The complaints here seem mostly based on conservatism - but by its very nature, the wiki evolves. ]]] 08:28, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

This seems unnecessarily complex. Articles are placed on RfC in the hope they will receive immediate attention; it is counterproductive to split the list into subpages which will divide that attention. Additionally, typical disputes mainly concern editorial issues, not the specific field of study of the articles in question. {{User:Eequor/Signature/Syllabic}} 11:52, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

== Request for comment on a disambig page ==

I'm looking for second opinions on a rewrite of ] (]). Where should I go to request comment? --] (]) 02:53, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
*I'd suggest . ]]] 07:56, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

==Archives==

Does anyone know what happened to the dispute archives? ] ] 08:32, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
*There's one at ]. The ] has dropped out of use since last june, since nobody had been really bothering to keep a proper archive for a long time (it consisted of simply cut/pasting the entries there, and nobody ever seemed to read them that way). The ] even more so, it hasn't been updated since 2004. ]]] 09:24, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

==Kemal Ataturk==
Article on ] is blatantly POV, especially the "criticism" section. Words like "evil" are used to describe Armenians. Section ends with "Long live Ataturk!"
*Added to appropriate section. ]]] 09:00, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

== Added category ==

I added a category for language and linguistics, since I know there have been heated disputes about it before and I simply could not see this fitting in any other category. My hope is that it won't actually be used and can be deleted later on, but I doubt it. A lot of people have a lot of opinions about language and not all of them are either well-informed or civil.

] <sup>]</sup> 22:09, 18 August 2005 (UTC)


==Where is ]?==
I see some discussion about deleting it, but no decision was made. Yet it is gone. Do the missing RFCs have to be replaced. Or do I look around until I find out where the dispute on ] vs ] was placed? ] 23:24, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
*In general, renaming issues go in the appropriate section (e.g. renaming of a historical figure goes in history). In this case, I'd add it to both sports and science, since it is one of those rare cases where it concerns both. ]]] 09:47, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

== How does your computer show this? ==

Over at the ], which is a sort of a sub-project of the ], myself and a few other editors who happen to be Indian are engaged in a discussion about how others on Wiki might view the Hindi language tags on their computers. This view can vary, depending on whether or not a given Wiki user is using several correct variables, such as correct operating system, correct language script pack, etc. etc.. So, the question is;<br>
:''"Could you please comment on whether or not you see all question marks in the Hindi language tags, or if you might see special Hindi script characters instead in the vari-colored Hindi language tag boxes on the right side at the ]?"'' <br>
If your system is compatible, you will see hindi language characters in the boxes. If not, you will see a series of question marks, something like this ''"यह सभ्य हिन्दी भाषा में प्रारंभिक कक्षा का प्रदान कर सकते हैं।"'' in the boxes. As many comments from as many different users as possible over the next few days would be most helpful for this, as such comments will give us a much better sense of how well (or poorly) the Hindi language tags are working for other Wiki users in general. Please leave your ''observation comments'' on the actual project talk page in the of that page.

Thanks,

] 23:52:33, 2005-08-20 (UTC)

== Anonymous IP certification ==
Should an anonymous IP count towards the 2 user threshold for certification of an RfC? Since we generally don't count IP votes on RfA or VfD votes, it doesn't seem like we should allow them to certify. Specifically, I'm referring to ], where the creator and first certifier was ]. I think it would set a bad precedent and possibly encourage abusive sockpuppets to allow RfCs to be certified by one (or more) anonymous IPs. ] | ] 00:07, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
*Several anon IP addresses are very well known as specific editors. So the answer is, it depends. Anons can vote on VfD, btw. ] 02:07, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

:I find it dubious, at best. I'm not sure what policy is regarding an RFC. I did find this, though. "In some votes, guidelines require you to be a registered user for it to be considered." ] 05:00, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
*It is somewhat dubious, yes. It depends on the edit history of the IP in question. Please see ]. ]]] 09:36, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

::On the one hand, to the extent that Misplaced Pages is "bound by precedent", it would indeed make a bad precedent to permit anonymous certification, precisely because it would encourage abusive sockpuppets. On the other hand, since Misplaced Pages is not "bound by precedent", it is not really important whether the RfC is considered to be "properly certified". I did raise the issue of whether it has been properly certified in my Response. The RfC is a revenge RfC aimed at retaliation against my filing of a previous RfC against the anonymous editor. The endorsing signatures in support of the anonymous editor on both RfCs are almost entirely those of admittedly first-time users who have created accounts for the purpose of supporting the anonymous editor. It does not matter much whether the RfC is "properly certified" because a user conduct RfC, as I understand, serves two purposes. The first is as a means for obtaining community input about a user's conduct that might enable him to change his behavior. There has so far been no such constructive input, only new accounts supporting the anonymous editor, and frustrated Wikipedians saying that this anonymous editor is out of control. The second purpose of an RfC is as a preliminary step toward arbitration. When the response to my RfC about the anonymous editor was belligerent, I filed an RfAr. I trust that when the ArbCom does accept the case, which largely does involve whether there is sockpuppet abuse, they will have the sound judgment to distinguish between real and unreal editors. ] 11:54, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

== Removal = Vandalism? ==

], someone I opened a RFC on, deleted the link to the RFC from the RFC main page. The evidence is found . I don't know if it counts as vandalism or not. ] 20:23, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

:The deletion was accompanied by an edit summary saying "48 hours". That meant that there had not been a second signature to the RfC within 48 hours after you posted it. I checked the times, and it was slightly more than 48 hours. I think that ] was guilty of poor judgment in deleting the RfC on his own conduct, but that it was not vandalism. ] 20:48, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

::Be serious now. He wants nothing to do with that RfC. Hence why he keeps removing the notification of it from his talk page. He attacked the validity of the RfC on the ]. You're being a bit too lenient with him. ] 21:00, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

::The RFC was created on August 20 05:30 (UTC), with ]'s signature. ] added his signature certifying on August 21 14:05 . That's well within 48 hours. Mr. Walsh in fact struck out ]'s signature from the RFC , apparently believing (from what I read on the talk page) that Acetic Acid was in "no position" to certify the RFC. He then removed the RFC from the main page , tagged it for speedy deletion and a short while after removed all modifications to the RFC with edit summary "test" , without, however, restoring the RFC link on the main page. A puzzling sequence of edits to say the least. ] · ] 21:06, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

:::In looking at the additional diffs, it does appear that there has been conduct that is either vandalism or similar to vandalism. I still do not understant what the original issue was (as I noted in an outside opinion to the RfC). However, I would suggest that a revised RfC be refiled, including the diffs cited by ]. The deletion of the RfC link itself is not the conclusive evidence. ] 22:54, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

==First step toward arbitration==
FuelWagon, it ''may'' be the first step toward arbitration, which is true and is what I wrote. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 23:47, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

:Yes, it "may" be, but an RFC is not a causal link to arbitration. I know of at least one RFC that was filed specifically because the person thought, in part, that he needed to do an RFC before he could get into arbitration. I had posted a comment that said somethign to the effect of

:::"An RFC is a method of dispute resolution unto itself. Do not fill out an RFC as an "arbitration application", rather use it as an opportunity to resolve the dispute at hand".

:Except that comment got reverted. The "RFC 'may' become Arbitration" setence is not clear. It actually makes the linkage more confusing, not more clear. And a version of it was quoted at least by one RFC filer to mean he needed to file an RFC before he could get into arbitration. That's not the sort of behaviour I want to encourage around RFC's. ] 00:26, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

I think it's pretty clear, and the last time we had this discussion, other editors agreed. The arbcom often asks for an RfC before accepting a case, so it's definitely true that an RfC ''may be'' the first step toward arbitration. It's important to have a statement making clear this is a serious step because of the number of frivolous RfCs that are posted. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 00:30, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

:Actually, uninvited company removed the two bullets you just reinserted and his removal was supported by a couple of editors and opposed by no one.. So, I don't think "consensus" can be declared here. As for the number of "frivolous" RFC's, yes, they are a problem, but I would assert that the editors who are making a problem out of them are doing so specifically ''because'' they think an RFC will punish the target in some way and/or get them into arbitration. you're sentence only encourages that behaviour by implying a link where none exists. And a version of your sentence was quoted by one editor who filed what I woudl call a bad-faith RFC as the very reason he filed it: to get to arbitration. If you want to reduce these sorts of bad-faith RFC's, then tell bad-faith editors taht an RFC is a mechanism for dispute resolution unto itself and should be used as such, tell them to NOT file an RFC as an "arbitration application". don't imply a linkage. Explicitely break the linkage and tell them to not relate to an RFC as a means to get into arbitration. The mentality of bad-faith RFC's seems to be "If I get enough of my friends to vote my way on this RFC, then the arbitration committee will simply rule in my favor and ban the other user." Implying a linkage only encourages this mentality. If a bad faith editor goes to teh RFC page and sees "An RFC ''may'' be the first step to arbitration", they'll think, "yeah, that's exactly what I need". If they go to the RFC page and see "An RFC is a method of dispute resolution unto itself, use it as such." That should short circuit some of the bad RFC's. If it also says "Do not file an RFC as an "arbitration application"", that should actually derail a few editors from filing a bad-faith RFC. I agree the problem exists. I'm saying this sentence makes the problem worse. ] 00:45, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

:Filing an RfC as the first step toward arbitration is not doing it in bad faith. It's quite normal to do that and in fact is one of the purposes of an RfC. And we did have a consensus before to leave my edit as it was. I can ask the same editors again whether they still support it, but I hope you won't ask me to. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 00:49, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

::It was only the requirement of diffs that TUC objected to, because dispute resolution may have taken place by e-mail, so I've removed that, and stated the provision of diffs as preferable but not required. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 00:55, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

:::Your insistence on the "cure" doesn't make sense to me given the "disease" you claim to wish to fix. Your adamancy that it be your specific language, and that you'll call in the troops if it isn't, occurs to me as strange for a wiki. I agree that the problem of bad-faith RFC's exist. I just happen to think your "cure" will only encourage the trolls looking for something to beat over the head of another editor. "Oh look, an easy way to arbitration." Are you telling me you find no other wording acceptable? Are you telling me that you'll jump right over any possible negotiation and go straight to a poll for your wording? I had suggested the sentence: ''"Do not fill out an RFC as an 'arbitration application'. An RFC is a method of dispute resolution unto itself. Use it as such"''. And you're telling me this doesn't work in any way? It may not discourage a bad-faith editor looking to punish someone, but it won't ''encourage'' them the way "An RFC may be the first step to arbitration" shows them a way to trounce another editor. As for "good-faith" editors filing an RFC as step-one to arbitration, I dispute that interpretation. An RFC should be used as a dispute resolution mechanism in and of itself. If any editor files an RFC solely to get into arbitration, they are misuing the RFC system and should be honest about their intentions and simply go straight to arbitration. The thing that separates "good faith" RFC's from "Bad faith" RFC's is simply whether or not the editor is using it to resolve a dispute or whether they are using it in preparation for something else. No good-faith editor should relate to an RFC as simply a "formality" before getting to arbitration. for a good faith editor, an RFC is step one to arbitration the way flossing is step one to oral surgery. Good faith editors should relate to an RFC as preventitive, not punitive, so your sentence is not needed for good faith editors. But for bad-faith editors, your sentence is like waving a red-cape in front of an angry bull. They're already steamed and looking for something to charge, and you just gave them a target to aim for: arbitration, and a means to get there: RFC. If the sentence really is intended to wave off an editor from filing a bad faith RFC, I think something like ''"Do not fill out an RFC as an 'arbitration application'. An RFC is a method of dispute resolution unto itself. Use it as such"'' will do a much better job of difusing the sitation, rather than inciting the bull to charge. ] 01:19, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

:I didn't say I'd call in the troops, simply that I could ask the editors who agreed with me before when they still do. The fact is that the arbcom does sometimes (or even often) ask for, or look for, an RfC before they will accept a case, so it ''is'' sometimes or often a first step toward arbitration. And sometimes it isn't. Hence the words ''may be''. I honestly don't see a problem with it. But the important parts of the edit for me are (a) that it's clear two certifiers have to show evidence of their separate attempts to resolve the same dispute (because lots of RfCs are filed without this and end up having to be deleted, but not before causing trouble for all concerned); and (b) that editors understand they should not post an RfC lightly.

:However, I also think it's important to point out that the link to arbitration may exist, so that editors are aware of it. Just because an RfC is posted by someone who ''doesn't'' want to go to arbitration, that doesn't mean the RfC evidence won't later be used in arbitration by someone else. We can't always control the consequences of our actions on a wiki. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 01:28, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

::Well, maybe there needs to be a policy for deleting RFC's at some point. I already proposed the idea that an RFC should be disallowed from arbitration as one possibility, but you're now addressing a different problem. I'm talking about a bad faith editor looking for a way to punish another editor. And in that situation, that an RFC hangs around for a long time is even more incentive for punishment. Here's the story:

:::::An editor has just been involved in a revert war with someone else. A couple of other editors get involved, and the only thing that keeps the article from churning ad infinitum is the 3RR policy. There are two possible responses: George acting in good faith wants a way to resolve the dispute. Pete acting in bad faith wants a way to punish his opponents. Both George and Pete go to the RFC page. They see one of two alternatives:
::::::(1)''"An RFC may be the first step toward arbitration, which can bring punitive actions against an editor. It is therefore not a step to be taken lightly."''
::::::(2)''"Do not fill out an RFC as an 'arbitration application'. An RFC is a method of dispute resolution unto itself. Use it as such"''
:::::Good-faith George doesn't care if it's (1) or (2). He's looking for a good-faith way to resolve the dispute. Punitive Pete is looking for a way to punish the editors who opposed his changes to the article. If Pete sees (1), he sees "step one to arbitration" and sees a way to get what he wants. A bad-faith, punitive RFC is filed. If Pete sees (2), he isn't offered a path to punishment, and is offered a way to resolve the problem non-violently. He may still be so steamed that he files an RFC anyway. but at least he was admonished to cool off and to use the RFC for finding a resolution, rather than getting to arbitration. Anyway, that's how I see it. real world calls. ] 01:36, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

:::::::Yes, I see your point, but the fact remains that the arbcom does ask for RfCs as a first step toward arbitration. I was involved in taking a case through arbcom last year, and before I filed it, I was advised that I might be asked to post an RfC first in order to use it as evidence. In the end, I didn't have to, but the suggestion was made by more than one member of the arbcom, and is quite common. If you want to change that, it can't be done on this page, but will have to be taken up with them, or elsewhere (village pump, mailing list, for example).

:::::::Regarding deleting them after a period, I agree with you, but there was a wide-ranging discussion about this some months ago, and there was a strong consensus to keep them without time limit, so long as they'd been properly certified. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 01:44, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

::::::::If arbcom asks for an RFC, then there is no need to warn the user that an RFC "may be the first step to arbitration", because they ''already went to arbitration'' and were asked to go back and get an RFC. What you're actually doing with this warning is discouraging good faith editors from filing an RFC because as you said "We can't always control the consequences of our actions". Your warning "It is therefore not a step to be taken lightly" will discourage good-faith George from filing a reasonable RFC because only a good-faith editor would heed a warning to "not take it lightly". But your warning will do nothing against punitive-Pete who is specifically looking for "consequences", specifically looking for a way to punish another editor. And the fact that if he gets one of his buddies to certify his RFC, then it will stay around forever is only ''more'' incentive for him. If Pete can get enough RFC's agaisnt an editor, then he can push it to arbitration and attempt to get his opponent banned. Your warning encourages bad-faith RFC's and discourages legitimate RFC's. I am trying to ''encourage'' good faith editors to use an RFC as a way to resolve a dispute and I'm trying to ''discourage'' bad faith editors from filing an RFC as an application to get into arbitration. Bad faith editors don't want an RFC to '''resolve''' anything. They want to make their case, get a bunch of signatures, and push into arbitration where punishment can be metted out. ] 14:30, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

:::::::::I appreciate your willingness to compromise. ] 13:48, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

:::::::::I also appreciate your honest and forthright edit summaries regarding this matter as well. "Restoring deleted material" is probably the best and most accurate representation of this discussion. ] 13:52, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

The thing is, FuelWagon, that what you want to add just isn't accurate. RfCs ''are'' regarded as potentially a first step toward arbitration by most, if not all, editors who file them. Perhaps they ought not to be, but they are. They're also so regarded by the arbcom to the best of my knowledge. If you want to add to the edits I've made to the page, by all means do so (so long as they're not contradictory), but please don't delete what I've written. As an admin, I'm involved in deleting frivolous RfCs where no one has bothered to follow the rules for filing them, and there are too many. I therefore want to make sure that people know early on that an RfC is a serious step, not to be taken lightly. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 14:04, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

===Outside View by McClenon===
]: You have a point, but I respectfully suggest that you take a break from arguing it. You and ] are both on the side of trying to maintain reasoned discussion. Please do not waste so much time arguing with her about terminology.

It is my own opinion that an RfC has either or both of two purposes. It can be a method of seeking outside comments (as its name implies) as a means of dispute resolution in itself, especially with good-faith editors. It can also be a step toward arbitration, especially against bad-faith editors. It is also a method of determining whether the subject is a good-faith editor or bad-faith editor.

I disagree that SlimVirgin's warning encourages bad-faith RfCs. There will be bad-faith RfCs anyway. Also, bad-faith editors do not only file RfCs in order to get into arbitration. They also file bad-faith RfCs in order to intimidate and threaten.

I suggest that my own situation should be a case in point. I trust that FuelWagon and SlimVirgin will agree that the RfCs that I recently posted were filed in good faith, and that a bad-faith RfC was then filed against me. The value of SlimVirgin's warning is to good-faith editors who are afraid of confrontation. It says, in essence, "Think before you post. You might make the subject of the RfC angry, and here is why." Her warning would not have discouraged me from filing, and it would not have encouraged the bad-faith filing against me, which would have happened anyway. It is a statement to the faint-hearted not to cross this step. ] 12:49, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

::I think it's clear that SlimVirgin finds her warning to be non-negotiable. I've tried different wording in an attempt to satisfy her concerns. She reverts to her original wording. And her edit summaries clearly indicate this is non-negotiable. No mention of a dispute over wording, no mention of attempting to resolve anything. Just "restoring deleted material". Nice teamwork there. I appreciate the wiki-spirit that SlimVirgin consistently inspires. ] 14:08, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

::As for the idea of warning good-faith editors of a possible angry reaction to an RFC, that's ''different'' than "don't take it lightly". "don't take it lightly" is saying don't do it, and gives no real reason other than a vague reference to "step one to mediation". If you want to warn good faith editors they may get an angry reaction to their RFC, tell them ''that''. Telling a good faith editor "don't take it lightly" is like warning someone "danger ahead" on a roadsign. Should they stop? should they keep going? Is the bridge out? is traffic reduced to one lane? Is it simply road crews working on the shoulders? "danger ahead" says nothing to the driver that helps them make a decision to continue or not, to slow down, to maintain speed, or to turn around. ] 14:08, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

::I've mentioned this before, but SlimVirgin simply "restores deleted material". No variations. No attempts to find some wording to deal with this concern. no negotiations. No attempts at resolution. nothing. Standard stonewalling procedures. ] 14:08, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

::There are two different warnings here. one for good faith editors to warn them of possible angry reaction to their RFC. one for bad faith editors to warn them to not relate to an RFC as paperwork, as case-building wikilawyering in preparation for arbitration. And apparently, SlimVirgin has decided which warning is important and how it should be worded. I love wikipedia. ] 14:08, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

::Since she has effectively made this non-negotiable, I'll take your advice and "take a break" from it. ] 14:08, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

:::Actually, I'll try one last alternative. I'll leave Slim's non-negotiable warning in place, and I'll add my own. Her reaction will indicate where this is going. ] 14:31, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

::::Please don't start the ''ad hominmen'' comments again, FW. I can live with your addition, I think. Two things: first, an RfC filed in good faith may also be a first step toward arbitration, as it's a prior step in the dispute-resolution process, so I slightly reworded what you wrote to allow for that. Going to the arbcom isn't a sign of bad faith, and nor is filing an RfC for that purpose. Secondly, this sentence: "It is intended to be a way to resolve disputes between editors. Use it as such." When you say "it is intended," who do you mean intends it this way? I know that since I've been editing, I haven't see any disputes resolved using an RfC. On the contrary, I've only seen them cause bad feeling. Well, I suppose you could count editors leaving as resolving the dispute, and I've seen RfCs that have caused that, but I don't think that's quite what you meant. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 15:22, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

==Removal==
If anm article doesn't get endorsed in 48 hours it must be removed. Reinserting it looks really dodgy, as in trying to manipulate the system, ] 00:14, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
*Yes, but since the unendorsed RFC have a tendendcy to be deleted, removing them is best left to admins. ]]] 14:39, August 23, 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.
Shortcut
NOTE: This talk page is not the place to post notices of disputes or requests for comment, or to ask questions about changes you would like to make to individual articles. Please follow Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment.
Are you having trouble getting your RfC listed? Please make sure the bot hasn't been turned off. If the bot hasn't run in the last few hours, then please alert the bot's owner. If the bot is apparently running, then the problem is almost certainly with the template formatting. To get help with formatting the template correctly, please leave a message, including the name of the page where you want to start the RfC, at the bottom of this page.
? view · edit Frequently asked questions
The RfC question isn't neutral!
Wikipedians are rarely swayed by a non-neutral question. They've got their own minds and they'll come to their own conclusions. A non-neutral question might be a good reason to fix the question, but it is not grounds to halt or re-start the RfC. If you believe that a question is non-neutral, you are better off simply participating in the RfC to present arguments about the underlying dispute. An additional comment about the question's neutrality may or may not be appropriate, depending on its relevance to those arguments.
The RFC question is not brief. Can I fix it?
The "question" is the part that shows up on the RFC listing pages (example of listing page). If the RFC question itself is substantially longer than all the others and you are not appearing in the role of the loyal opposition, then you can copy a small part the original question plus the original timestamp (not usually the name) to the top or write a simplified question. If, however, the person who started the RFC discussion might consider you to be part of the dispute, you should ask someone else to adjust it (e.g., by asking the person who started the RFC to shorten it or by posting a note on the RFC talk page).
I don't like any of the options I've been asked to vote for.
RFCs aren't votes. You can suggest a compromise or an option that others haven't considered, exactly like you would in any other talk page discussion.
How long should an RFC last?
As long as all of the participants need, and no longer. If you started an RFC, and you believe other editors will not agree to your proposal, then you are permitted to admit defeat and withdraw it at any time. However, editors who believe their side is winning are advised to not even mention the possibility of ending an RFC early during the first week.
Is the result of an RFC binding?
Not inherently, but an RFC is usually an effective way of determining the consensus of editors, which is binding. The formal closing summary of an RfC is generally considered to be a summary of the current consensus, although consensus can change over time.
Aren't all RFCs supposed to get a formal closing summary?
No. Most of the time, the result is clear to all of the participants, and editors should not waste the community's time by asking someone else to officially write down what everyone already knows. Only a minority of RFCs get closing summary statements.
Can the person who started the RFC, or another involved editor, write a summary of the discussion?
Yes. In particular, when a proposal is soundly rejected, proponents are encouraged to accept defeat with grace. However, if the outcome could plausibly be disputed, then involved editors (on all sides of a dispute) are encouraged to let someone else write a summary.
This project page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconDispute Resolution (inactive)
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Dispute Resolution, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Dispute ResolutionWikipedia:WikiProject Dispute ResolutionTemplate:WikiProject Dispute ResolutionDispute Resolution

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

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

RFC signer

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RfCs about Misplaced Pages:Vital articles

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

RFC on signing RFCs

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

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


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

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

Survey

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

Discussion

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

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

ArbCom limits on RFC comments

Just FYI:

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

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

How long is the result of an RFC valid for?

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

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