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 15:55, 10 November 2008 editFuture Perfect at Sunrise (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Administrators87,184 editsm Reverted edits by 79.131.173.171 (talk) to last version by Future Perfect at Sunrise← Previous edit Latest revision as of 21:40, 24 December 2024 edit undoSoni (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers10,932 edits →RFC on signing RFCs: Closing discussion (DiscussionCloser v.1.7.3-8) 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{talkheader|wp=yes|noarchive=yes|search=no|shortcut=WT:RFC}}
{{Shortcut|WT:RFC}}
{{tmbox|text='''NOTE:''' This talk page is '''not''' the place to post notices of disputes or requests for comment, or to ask questions about changes you would like to make to individual articles. Please follow ].}}
{| class="messagebox standard-talk"
{{info|'''Are you having trouble getting your RfC listed?''' Please ]. If the bot hasn't run in the last few hours, then please alert ]. If the bot is apparently running, then the problem is almost certainly with the template formatting. To get help with formatting the template correctly, please leave a message, including the name of the page where you want to start the RfC, at the bottom of this page.}}
|-
{{FAQ|collapsed=no}}
|<big>'''NOTE:''' This talk page is '''not''' the place to post notices of disputes or requests for comment.</big> Please follow ].</big>
{{WikiProject banner shell|
|}
{{WikiProject Dispute Resolution}}
}}
{{archive box|search=yes|bot=MiszaBot II|age=40|
*For why RfC was created, see:
**]
#]
#]
#]
#]
#]
#]
#]
#]
#]
#]
#]
#]
#]
#]
#]
#]
#]
#]
#]
#]
#]
}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}}
|maxarchivesize = 200K
|counter = 21
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
|algo = old(40d)
|archive = Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for comment/Archive %(counter)d
}}


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

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

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

{| class="wikitable"
|+ Should we require all RFCs to be signed with a username?
|- |-
! {{yes}}, we should require this.
!align="center"|]<br/>]
! {{no}}, we should not require this.
----
|- |-
| scope="col" width="50%" |
|
* If an RFC is unsigned, and I want to know who started it, I have to waste seconds looking in the page history.
*For why RfC was created, see
* RFC used to ban signatures, but since editors were given a choice, signing has become the most popular choice (10 out of 11 RFCs).
**]
* If someone wants to start and RFC without their name appearing at the top of the section, they can ask an admin to sign the admin's username instead.
**]
* We could also make a list of exceptions but still officially require signing your name.
*]: Feb 2004–May 2005
| scope="col" width="50%" |
*]: May 2005–Sep 2005
* Some RFCs are written by more than one person, so signing one name is inaccurate. Signing with someone else's name would be even worse, because the page history would not have an accurate name.
*]: Sep 2005–Oct 2005
* Unsigned RFCs promote fairness. Without knowing who started the RFC, the responses will not be biased by wanting to support a friend or reacting to the reputation of the editor who started it.
*]: Oct 2005–May 2006
* Not including a username is important for some subjects, when an individual's signature might be seen as disclosing the editor's view on the subject. For example, if the username is either in the Hebrew or the Arabic alphabet, and the article is about Palestinians, then editors will assume that the person starting the RFC is biased.
*]: May 2006–Dec 2006
*]: Jan 2007–Jun 2007
*]: July 2007–Dec 2007
*]: Jan 2008-May 2008
|} |}


] (]) 19:23, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
== Archives of WP:RFC ==

The most recent archive with a link at the top of this page is number 7. It only goes to mid 2007. Where are the more recent archives?

Thanks, ] (]) 15:56, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

:Fixed (finally). No one is apparently doing this task anymore. I've done archives 8 and started 9. Personally, I think this page would benefit from letting the archives be handled by a bot since no one is doing it. Thoughts? Objections? -- ]&nbsp;(]&nbsp;'''·''' ]) 02:10, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

==Srbosjek article==

] see talkpage

I've been waiting for a response on some issues for few months now.Anyone?--] (]) 18:53, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

== China works for Germany since 1644 ==

Chinese Paramilitary Police Exchange.

France, England & America are exchanging Chinese Paramilitary Police who are highly trained in martial arts to attack Free-Tibet protestors in Europe, England & America.

But Germany set up funds for Free-Tibet.

So Germany is earning money from the protests in Tibet, but the Bavarian Illuminati is stolen from Buddhism.

German Aristocracy is the Corrupt World Government. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 15:17, 9 April 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== How? ==

I requests for comment, at ], but wasn't being anything. May I fault something. --] 17:37, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

== Limits of Template Procedure ==

I have two redundant categories; I don't give a ] either way, but I expect strong resistance if I would try to CFD either one of them. Since there is no ] I thought an RFC seems to be the right place to talk matters through with all interested parties. However, the RFC procedure asks me to pick one place to insert the template.

Is there a way to get an RFC started without taking sides? Yes, it's a small thing, but I would not like to give up my neutrality on technical issues.

Is there a better place to have the discussion? --]&nbsp;]
: Forgot something: A simple ] (which I'm not even sure would work on categories) is not an option because, depending on the interpretation picked, there is a third option to make one a subcat of the other. --]&nbsp;]

== Manual RFC list addition option when bot goes AWOL? ==

Seems the bot is unreliable in the extreme, judging by the accounts here. I've tried to entice it to notice an RFC tag ] for a couple of days now; no joy. How about a manual option? ] (]) 20:48, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, was apparently implemented already. Sorry for wasting everybody's valuable time. ] (]) 22:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

:What manual option do you refer to? ] | (] - ]) 17:37, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

== Merging in editor review ==

I have ]. Comments and opinions are welcome. ] (]) 22:52, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

== "RFC error" template inserted; not clear why ==

Why did the RFC bot make from "<nowiki>{{RFCsci |section= RfC: Effectiveness of chiropractic care !! Is ]'s discussion of effectiveness biased? If so, what should it be replaced with? !! time=08:36, 24 April 2008 (UTC)}}</nowiki>" to "<nowiki>{{RFC error}}</nowiki>? I don't see anything wrong with that use of RFCsci. ] (]) 09:08, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
:See ] for help with that bot. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 09:15, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

== Extremely shabby instructions ==

Is this template and this process supposed to be used at all? If yes, then improve the instructions. If no, please, remove it altogether, or put a defunct notice or something. ] advises to <nowiki>"Add {{RFCsoc| section=section name !! reason=a short summary of the discussion !! time= ~~~~~ }}"</nowiki>, while ] advises to <nowiki>"Add {{templatename| section=section name !! reason=a short summary of the discussion !! time= ~~~~~ }}"</nowiki>. Finally, ] is good enough to give anyone a headache. Make it lucid, make it user-friendly. Pleeeease. Misplaced Pages is not edited only by techno-savvy super-geeks who may know much about bots and codes and such stuff and very little on the article entries.<small>Sorry for the rant. But, that's really how I feel about this infernal set of instructions. Pfui.</small> <font face="Kristen ITC" color="deeppink">]</font><sup>(] • ])</sup> 04:43, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

== Bot hasn't added rfc to the list of articles yet ==

I added a rfc to the ] and ] pages, but the bot hasn't added them to the list yet. Is there usually a delay, or did I do it incorrectly? ] (]) 23:11, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

== Bumble Bee ,descriptions of nest,etc. ==

Hello

Looking up data of Bumblebee's I was disapointed in the description of nest ,etc. It took me 20 minutes and another Instructor at Rio Hondo College (Whittier,Ca.) to give W. this new information that ought to be added!I have a nest in the backyard a few feet from where I sit. The Bumble bee's create holes in the trunks for,"nest" and they can make a clean perfect hole to enter/exit. I was quite suprized that a tree trunk was not in the W. Dictionairy listing such. It is not confirmed if it is a red pepper tree or not yet it is suprizing how the bumbee's capitolize the nest.The amount of wood chips(sawdust) from there excavating are used as ,"wings" above and below the entry/exit whole,I can only surmise there are for cooling. Bumblebees are amazing creatures and it feels good to keep the nest going. I had one (black) bumble bee hover in front of me less than a foot away in what seemd like it was checking me out when I began to sit near the nest. I did not move yet I looked at the Bee and felt,"I would be quite displeased if I was stung! I agree with the social part of the definetion. I hope you can add tree trunks for nest. Thank you & have a good day. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 20:08, 5 May 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== ] is down? ==

The contribution list shows many days between runs. The last run was 01:28 UTC on 7 May. Perhaps someone who knows about the bot might give be kind enough to give it a look? ] (])

==Please someone fix this==

]. The bot did something and I have no idea how to fix the template. Thanks. ] (]) 21:40, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
: The dispute is now resolved, so ignore this, and thanks. ] (]) 08:24, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

==possible RFC template problem==
I've been attempting an RFC from ]. The template creates information nicely, but several attempts by the bot to process the request have failed. It would be ''nice'' if there were more of a positive connection between the request and the bot - that is, if the template appears to work, the bot has no trouble with the info. I realize this is simpler than it sounds! :) ] (]) 15:30, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

== Not showing up on list ==

http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Anti-Americanism#RFC:_Degeneracy_Thesis ] (]) 20:24, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

:This is till not working. Can somebody fix it? <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 02:44, 29 May 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

::I did a few minor things to try and fix. Bot should pick it up on the next run. If it revisits and throws an error again, come update here. -- ]&nbsp;(]&nbsp;'''·''' ]) 02:54, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 03:16, 29 May 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== RFC bot messed up Chiropractic entry in RFCsci list ==

to ] induced to ]. The latter change is bogus because it has:
:<nowiki>It is my opinion that [http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title</nowiki>
where it should have had:
:<nowiki>It is my opinion that was for the better. Please give your opinion on the matter.</nowiki>
Evidently the bot mishandles "=" in the reason. I the bug in the template by hand but expect that the bot bug will undo the repair. Can this bot bug be fixed, please? (I'll leave a note on ].) ] (]) 22:38, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
: {{tl|RFC tagging instructions}}, transcluded onto all the lists, states that ! and = cannot be used outside the context of tag structure. ] (]) 18:53, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

== Link Error, Active RfCs by topic area ==
in the Active RfCs by topic area box in the ] area, the '''watch''' links point to the template page rather than the actual RFC page. I'll fix this myself if no one else does; I'm just hesitating (and commenting) because there may be some arcane wiki thing going on here that I don't know about, and don't want to mess up. :-) --] (]) 19:16, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

== WTH ==

The RFCBot keeps rejecting this:

<nowiki>== Trivia and unnecessary repetition ==</nowiki><br />
<nowiki>{{RFCbio | section=Trivia and unnecessary repetition !! Repetition in recent edits !! time=18:08, 30 May 2008 (UTC) }}</nowiki>

Can someone tell me what the heck is wrong with it? Or if the problem is with the bot, how do I get it to go 'way and lee' me alone? ] (]) 20:07, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

:the only things I can see that vary from the template are (a) you have a space after 'RFCbio' (wiki's can be picky) (b) you don't have 'reason=' before 'Repetition in recent edits'. --] (]) 21:55, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

== Problems ==

I'm trying to start a RFC at ]. I can't figure out whether the template just isn't working properly, or whether its supposed to render how it has (I've never used this process before). Can someone help me out by checking it? Cheers. <b><i>]<small> ] • ] </small></i></b> 10:26, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

== Appeal - please help ==

It is high time that the abuses against the unjustly banned user "Gibraltarian" were dealt with rationally and fairly. My ban was brought about by a troll user's malicious complaint, and he continually vandalised any words I tried to post in my defence. I appeal to any admin or Arbcom member with a sense of justice to please contact me on a_gibraltarian@hotmail.com to discuss the matter. Many thanks

DO NOT REVERT.
:Please go to ] for instructions on appealing your block to the arbitration committee or the community. --]'s ] ] 23:40, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

==Template problem at ]==
I'm trying to get an RFC listed. I've used

<nowiki>{{RFCbio| section=Discrimination against Armenians in Somerville !! An editor says Hovhaness's neighbors told them that the family moved from Somerville to Arlington because they felt there was discrimination against Armenians in Somerville at that time. How can this interesting information be included in the article? !! time= ~~~~~}}</nowiki>

but I keep getting the template replaced with an error message from the RFC bot. I can't see what's wrong with the template and the error message offers no clues. Originally the section title was enclosed in quotation marks, and I thought that might be the problem and removed them, but still no joy. What am I missing? ] ] 10:23, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

== Closing request ==

has been open for over a month with nothing of substance added after the first week. I therefore kindly ask for the procedure to be closed and archived. ] (]) 23:12, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

:Probably wrong place for this request if I understand the box at top of this page :-) Instead see ] - seems a RfC gets automatically closed one month after last activity by the RfC bot (whatever that is). ] <sup> ] </sup> 22:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
::However ] gives no further details, so could someone familar with the bot help clarify the vague explanation as to RfC closure/archiving :-) ] <sup> ] </sup> 22:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

== RfC/U and evidence - policy suggestions ==

This is a policy suggestion (apologies for its length). For sometime RfC/Us have tended towards ]s on the persons behind the accounts rather than being a case about proven on-wiki user conduct issues as evidenced by diffs. This has "divided the community" by hosting unprovabale personalized arguments. This not what wikipedia is for. It is also discrediting the RfC process.

Even if 2 editors (or 3 or 4) agree there is a problem with another user but don't provide evidence proving there is a substantive case to answer the RfC/U will look, to an uninvolved user, like it is made in bad faith.

For the sake of the RfC/U cases themselves and for the sake of this process's future we need to set hard parameters for all RfC/U comments and cases. The suggestions below are not (as far as I'm aware) novel ones. We already successfully implement stricter versions of these suggestions for ].

#Evidence must clearly demonstrate policy violations without interpretation - evidence needing interpretation should be sent to ArbCom (especially in relation to misuse of sources).
#Some method of measuring RfC/U evidence needs to be put in place ''before'' an RfC is accepted. RfC/Us are covered by WP:AGF and WP:NPA. When diffs are clearly mis-interpreted by those bringing a case the RfC ''looks like'' it is being filed in bad faith - even if a plurality of users '''endorse''' it ] already explains that that is not good enough. (However we do need to strike a balance here so that it does not create undue instruction creep.)
#Some sanction for spurious (rather than inadequately evidenced) RfC/Us should be enforced. Spurious and ] use of this process ''are'' ] and ] acts. I'd suggest an Immediate level 4 template for "disruptive use of the RfC process" cover by the policies of ] and ].
#As with my first suggestion we should have clear guidance whether off-wiki matters ''may'' be discussed here. As I understand previous ArbCom rulings they will look at things like this. However I would suggest due to copy-right issues around releasing emails; due to the complicated relationship of this project with sites about it; and considering ArbCom's explicit wish that evidence of off-site meat-puppetry be passed on to them directly, that RfC/U is '''not''' a venue for these issues.
#'''''Nemo contra factum suum venire''''' ("No man can contradict his own deed"). Tendentious defense is tendentious editing. When a diff clearly and unambiguously shows an editor being incivil, flamebaiting, soapboxing, vandalizing, lying, etc, then they should not defend the indefensible. Admittedly it has become a rarity to see unambiguous diffs at RfC/U but when that is the case some measure should be taken to prevent ... trolling.

Basically I'd suggest that some sort of uninvolved clerk/admin roster should be set-up to patrol RfCs (to check evidence and enforce WP:CIVIL on them). Secondly, after two users have endorsed an RfC the evidence should be checked before it is fully opened and accepted - a checking period should be introduced. Thirdly sanctions (warnings issued only by the rostered RfC-admins and clerks) should be created and explained clearly on the RfC page.

We take matters of privacy seriously at RFCU - it already has a clearly defined set of parameters for when a check can take place. Since AGF ''is'' one of the ] of this project we should take it seriously too. Perhaps only time can heal the divide within the community but we can certainly reduce the level of pointy and personalized RfC/Us by setting parameters for what and how RfC/Us can take place. This would achieve two things: a) it should improve RfCs by making sure there is evidence for them; and b) it will reduce the poisonous atmosphere created by inappropriate (and inappropriate use of) RfC/Us. WP:RFC is part of ] not dispute escalation.

These suggestions are not prefect - I don't assume that I can solve all the community's problems or the processes problems with these ideas - so if anyone has any thoughts on these suggestions please comment--] <sup>]</sup> 13:33, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

:I'd like to suggest an additional point. On the receiving end of an RfC/U, it has troubled me greatly that commenting users tend to make a lot of assumptions (good and bad faith alike) about the user's motivations and thoughts. It seems to me that this is not very helpful. The user is a human being, so why don't commenting users ask questions instead? Isn't a better understanding of each other key to getting along better? ] (]) 14:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


==Request==
I have been recommended to leave a note here, concerning my urgent request here: . Thank you in advance for the trouble. ]

== Nationality in Biographies of Living Persons ==

A couple of comments on a biography of a living person have caused me concern. The editor in question thinks it is acceptable to add a nationality to an article, where the only information available is a place of birth. I fundamentally disagree and think this is a very sloppy practise. A place of birth does not define nationality, if that is all the source says that is all that should go into the article. In response to adding a <nowiki>{{fact}}</nowiki> tag, the same editor removed it as "when there is something at the top of the page saying the whole article is unreferenced" there is no need to add one. Is this acceptable practise? Looking through guidance I can find nothing to say that it is. I thought I would ask for comments informally before starting an RFC. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 11:57, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

: FWIW, I would find no argument with the idea that it's not <i>needed</i> but it's good to add. It seems particularly unhelpful to <i>remove</i> such tags: That puts the burden of checking for the top-level tag on you, so that you may add the <nowiki>{{fact}}</nowiki> tag after the top-level one is removed, if it ever IS removed. Better to allow people like you to add those tags as they notice the need. ] (]) 01:55, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

==Need a cold fusion on RfCsci==

There is a second cold fusion RfC that needs to be included on the RfCsci template. Thanks. ] (]) 17:49, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

== Re: Neuroplasticity and Irrelevant Links ==

I've been trying to add a topic to this list but it hasn't shown up. I see that others have this problem as well. I've never used the template before, but I believe that I have used it correctly. Please, if you will, check the bottom of the discussion on the Neuroplasticity page and add it to this list. I sincerely believe that one of the authors has added something irrelevant (The Tetris Effect), since it appears nowhere in the scientific literature on the subject. I believe that he has a theory about its relevance, unsupported by scientific study. Theories have their place, but not on this page. Thank you.23:53, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

== Bot malfunction? on RfC at ] ==

The initial RfC tag was done improperly, and RfCBot made an edit on the page saying so. The tag was fixed, but RfCBot has not been back to the article to explain any further problems with the tag nor added it to the RfC Bio list. 03:24, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
:for some reason, the bot is referring the RfC link to a previous RfC and not the current one. the current RfC is at the bottom of the page and involves whether an anonymous blog constitutes a valid source. can anyone offer some advice? ] (]) 23:30, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

== RFC not picked up ==

Hi. My rfc for ] does not seem to have been picked up by the bot. --] (]) 22:56, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

== What to do about an unlisted user-conduct RfC? ==

I don't know the procedure, but I see that ] is not listed at ]. Can somebody with experience in these matters please do what's necessary? -- ] (]) 15:39, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

*It's just a matter of putting it under the candidate section. I did so just now. --] (]) 23:49, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

== Style RFC not getting listed ==

I added an RFC tag to ] nearly 24 hours ago and it has not yet been listed at ]. Did I do something wrong? Thanks, --] <sup><small>]</small></sup>/] 15:32, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
:See ]. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 12:16, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
::Thanks for that. Am I looking for anything specific that's already on that page, or do you mean that's where I should look for an answer? Thanks, --] <sup><small>]</small></sup>/] 15:47, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
:::He's the guy who runs the bot who lists the RFCs. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 15:48, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
::::Ok, thanks. I've posted there as well but also posted here in case someone saw an obvious problem with my listing, or knew a way to get the issue listed in the meantime. Thanks, ----] <sup><small>]</small></sup>/] 15:49, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

== My edits to RfC/U ==

A little while ago I made a couple edits to the RfC/U page that were reverted due to no discussion taking place. It seemed fair enough, so I'm posting here to explain the edits. The first thing was to put myself as an RfC/U Coordinator. I have basically been handling the cases for a few weeks now, and it seemed that users have started accepting me as the go-to guy for matters regarding these. As a result I thought I would make it official. Secondly, I tried merging the admin pages. This stems from the Elonka RfC, which had a little bit of administrative issues involved, but 95% of it was editorial. I figured maybe it would be easier to just combine the two, but that would certainly be something to discuss. ] 02:19, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
:I wouldn't mind having a contact person for this sort of thing, in other venues like wikiprojects it seems very useful, so thanks for volunteering. I do think there should be some difference between Admin and non-Admin RfCs, just because the type of behavior and the range of remedies requested, will vary greatly and predictably. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 02:21, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
::I don't think there's a need for an RfC/U "co-ordinator"; all actions, including deletion of uncertified RfC's and archiving of closed RfC's, should be done by consensus rather than an individual, and to suggest an appointed individual has decision-making power over these would be incorrect and lead to disruption. Furthermore, the merging of admins and users is not a good move, in my opinion, as they address distinct issues and proceed in very different manners. If there's overlap, it should be filed in the admins section, especially when a core issue is the administrative application of arbitration remedies. ] (]) 02:23, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
:My major concern is you appointing yourself RFC/U coordinator. You can't just do that. One person shouldn't oversee RFC/U - it will mean that we only get one interpretation of a result of an RfC. I like the idea of a committee of users who close RfC's and judge the consensus of them, but that's for more than one person, and not decided by someone who edits the pages a lot. If I'm being honest, I'd like to see people who do more work deciphering the RfC's and stating clearly what the RfC shows on closure, rather than someone who simply closes the RfC and make things look tidy. ''']<sup>See ] or ]</sup>''' 02:24, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
::I agree. We have too many Coordinators already. ] <small>]</small> 02:40, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
:I don't care if Wizardman is "coordinator" or not. It doesn't give him any more or less ability or "power" than he (or anyone else) already has. Though I can see the benefit of having him list himself as someone to "goto" concerning this process. (Do we have any other volunteers?)
:As for merging, the problem for me is that unless the concerns involve "the tools" or associated responsibilities, then admins should be listed under the editor sections (an admin being "just another editor"). If it ''does'' involve the above, then I think that that should indeed be listed separately. - ] 07:50, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

* As it is, multiple editors (including myself), as well as administrators assist in managing the page, and RFC/U in general (and each of those users have been contacted in the same way - it doesn't mean we make drastic moves to become RFC coordinators or have extra authority). Frequently enforcing already existing norms, whether it's formatting, archiving, guidelines etc. probably only gives rise to the mere title as "an RFC regular" - nothing more. On the other issue, there are reasons why admin and editor RFCs and bots are kept separate - those reasons still carry the same level of weight and have not been eliminated, so there should be no change to the current format of the RFC/U page. ] (]) 11:25, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll drop the merge discussion, since after sleeping on it I realized it was a stupid idea. As for a coordinator or something, if not me then I at least think there should be some sort of body that handles it, else the Alastair Haines case may still be stuck in RfC instead of at RFAR. ] 21:05, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
:Not quite - the parties knew where to go next, when to consider going there etc., and the RFC should've concluded and been archived upon the RFAR being accepted, or upon a sanction being imposed by an admin or the community (on conduct that even remotely touches on the concerns at the RFC) because that's how it's been done to date. I've mostly agreed with your conclusion or closing/archiving to an extent - but always keep in mind that ample time should be given for outside input, even if it's a month since the last endorse in the RFC. That didn't quite happen in the Haines RFC, but in a clear case like that, it didn't need to wait so much either. ] (]) 00:54, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
::A good point. I've noticed that about 95% of the comments tend to come within the first week or two, and after that there's only a little bit more that's generally added, hence why my closes probably appear to be quick. ] 01:44, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
:::I wouldn't agree with that percentage, but certainly I'd say 'a lot'. The desired level of outside input can arrive up to 2 months after the RFC has been opened to be sure about the consensus. Anyway, whenever there are objections, there'd be reverts and/or modifications I think, so as long as you note them for the future, there's no worries. :) (And of course, there've been none so far on that.) ] (]) 03:54, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

===Suggestion for improvement===
What I'd like to see is a group of admins who are familiar with the process volunteering to oversee things. People complain that RFC/U has no teeth - well, I'd like to see the group of volunteering admins judging the consensus about what the RfC actually says and state it clearly to the user who's conduct is questioned. They make it clear what the consensus is saying at the top of the page, and inform the user in question of the findings of the RfC. If the consensus is that the user in question has not done anything wrong, then they also say that. It'd be more like an AfD style RfC, with firm decisions made from them (obviously without the time frame however). It's important that the person closing the RfC states what the community find problematic about the behaviour, and what changes the community would like to see in the users editing - they obviously can't enforce this though, and if the user were to carry on the problematic behaviour, ArbCom or the community could deal with it using sanctions. ''']<sup>See ] or ]</sup>''' 16:44, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
:'''Conditional support''' - free-for-alls must not be made. ''']''' <sup>(])</sup> 16:48, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
::They wouldn't - they'd be closed out propoerly and the true consensus gained. In the case of Elonka (which I sure is the reason why you're upset at the minute), this would probably closed out as a clear consensus that she did nothing wrong (although it would probably run a little longer). ''']<sup>See ] or ]</sup>''' 16:53, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
:::I'm not actually upset - you're assuming I am. The MFD nomination and the subsequent disputed tag was only partially influenced by Elonka's RFC. Seeing as no progress has been made to improve RFC/U since its last MFD nomination, I was contemplating another round soon. The spiral Elonka's RFC has gone down only accelerated the wait, and it's only poor timing it was nominated now. ''']''' <sup>(])</sup> 17:01, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
::::Well, as I said - I hope a new "system" like I suggested would put improve the whole process a lot, and the problems with the Elonka RfC would be fixed by that. ''']<sup>See ] or ]</sup>''' 17:05, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
:::::Anything that replaces this system would be better: possible harm beats definite harm any day. ''']''' <sup>(])</sup> 17:07, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Procedural note: The use of MfD in the past to rid the project of certain features, while at times effective, was not the best course of action. MfD is for deletion discussions regarding certain project-space pages. There is no need to delete RfC/U or RfC when there are other options available (deprecating them / marking them {{tl|historical}}). All of which can be accomplished through talk page discussion, village pump discussion, or perhaps an RfC. But MfD is ''not'' an appropriate forum, despite its history. --] (]) 19:15, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

==<s>Links to prior MfDs please</s>==
<s>I expected to find them at the top of the page.</s> --] (]) 16:30, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
:Nevermind. --] (]) 20:01, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

== RFC/U disputed, again ==

Seeing as MFD is (to my surprise, given the amount of times process has been nominated there before) the incorrect forum for getting rid of a process:

I am renominating this process page for deletion/historicalisation because the ] have not been followed. Because the page details a process, and not a policy or guideline, it cannot qualify for the use of {{tl|disputedtag}}, and as such MFD is used per precedent for processes such as the CSN and Esperanza.

El C, in closing, noted that RFC/U is problematic through its lack of enforcement, but also noted that the lack of RFC would cause ANI to become slightly busier. He also urged the community to reform the process and discount any superfluous RFCs - neither of which, have not happened: for the former, ] was proposed as a sanction-carrying alternative to RFC/U, and was rejected; for the latter, several recent RFCs (one including myself) were filed with lack of proper certification but was still kept.

Perhaps the most worrying thing about the process is that one of its creators, ], admitted that it's gone downhill from his concept into a "hate-fest free-for-all" and hardly resolves disputes, and subsequently supported archival. An example of this is Elonka's current RFC, which I made a similar comment that it's "gone from what may have been a valid dispute into an ugly incivility-creating free-for-all focusing on anything Elonka may have done wrong ever".

Nine months down the line, nothing has been done to improve the process, despite repeated urgings by several admins. Thus, I support the disuse of the process as a really bad idea. ''']''' <sup>(])</sup> 16:44, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
:See above section "]" - I'm hoping this could help the process a lot. ''']<sup>See ] or ]</sup>''' 16:46, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
::RFC/U does have lack of enforcement and judgment, but that's exactly what's been trying to get fixed recently. If one's gonna pick a time to MfD or tag this, this isn't the time. ] 20:49, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

== Template system disables listing RFCs in more than one subject area? ==

This seems to be a pretty serious flaw in this template system? Articles were always allowed to be listed in more than one subject area, and ought to be in order to attract discussants from relevant topics. For what reason should they not? —]→]&nbsp;&bull; 05:33, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

== RfC not showing up ==
Hello, I did an {{t1|RFCsci list}} at both ] & ], but Eurasian otter is not showing up on the RfC list. Would someone please fix whatever I did to screw it up. Rgrds. --] (]) 12:34, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Second request = Can someone please fix my screw up so ] shows up on the RfC page. I cannot see what I did wrong with the template. Rgrds. --] (]) 14:28, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

{{Done}}. ] (]) 13:22, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

== RFC disappeared==

I placed an RFC (for RFCpol) on the ] page. This can be read in . It went through successfully and appeared on the RFCpol page, as evidenced . Unfortunately, subsequent edits have caused the RFC to disappear altogether from the RFCpol page, and a notice to appear on the disputed ] page stating that ''"A user has requested comment on this page, but there is an error in the RFC template."''

The edit in which I posted four points in an effort to establish verifiability have also disappeared. '''Please could someone intervene to reinstate the RFC''', so that discussion can begin, outside of the context of an edit war - thanks. The text of the RFC is neutral, and states: ''"There is a dispute about whether or not to include a request on the Discussion page for full bibliographical details of the pamphlet The Hip-Pocket Hitler, authored by John Michell; and whether or how to mention his relationship with the fascist philosophy of author Julius Evola. An edit war has broken out, and comments are requested."'' If someone wishes to assert that Michell's relationship with ] is as a non-fascist who simply wrote a non-supportive essay for publication in the first (deluxe and limited-run) English edition of Evola's work ''Men Among the Ruins'', and who shares both a and a political label with Evola (']'), and that nothing more is reasonably sayable about the relationship, even despite Michell's authorship of ''The Hip-Pocket Hitler'', they are perfectly entitled to do so. However there is surely no good reason to remove the RFC, part of the purpose of which is precisely to elicit such comments (as well as from those who might then reasonably point out that Michell's introduction to Evola was very highly supportive), should anyone care to make them. A reasonable request for discussion should, if the system is to work properly, initiate a reasonable discussion. Let the process begin! <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 07:11, 19 August 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:User 'SageMab' keeps fiddling with the RFC posted on the said Talk page. Please could someone do something about this, e.g. issue a temporary block while the RFC receives comments - thanks. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 16:09, 19 August 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

::Please post this at ] or ] instead of here. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 16:12, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

== RfC not coming up ==

I set up last night an RfC for ] at ], but it's not showing up... can someone take a look at it and figure out what I've done wrong here? ] (]) 17:50, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
*Second request... can someone please take a look and set the RfC up right? ] (]) 01:10, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
::Also not coming up for ]; originally added 22 Aug and re-added 23 Aug when first placement didn't "take". ] (]) 20:25, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
:::eNom now appears on the RfC list, but Mike Comrie does not (and nobody has gotten back to me to say they've intervened manually). Still looks to me like a problem with the bot code. ] (]) 19:58, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

== Failed RfC/U: What's next? ==

What happens if agreements can't be found in an RfC/U such as ]?

We have an agenda-driven editor (author of a self-published book on a novel medical idea). He is barred from editing articles on the subject of his book because of COI (it only took two or three COINs and a promised from an admin to block him for any further violation). The editor refuses to edit in semi-related or unrelated areas (possibly because his "improvements" get promptly reverted), and is making a pest of himself on ] and his user talk page (currently featuring an essay on ], which prompted this RfC/U). His latest schtick is that I'm clearly a biased editor because I refused his demands to demonstrate my editing standards in an article of his choosing. (I recently topped 20,000 edits (per preferences); I think I've got enough of a track record that anyone could figure out what my normal article standards are, but he insists that none of the hundreds of articles I've previously worked on will do.)

We are not going to reach a consensus here. I don't believe he's able to grasp the basics of collaborative efforts or will ever understand how disruptive he is. But I don't know what happens next, and there's no information on this page.

A successful RfC/U should end with a custom-tailored agreement that the subject understands and that everyone can live with. But what do you do at the end of a failed RfC/U? ] (]) 20:28, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
:Haven't looked at the RFC in question, but if the concerns are found to be legitimate by third party users, then it's likely you need to present the problem either to the community (] or ]) or to ArbCom ] to take binding action. ] (]) 00:26, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

::Despite ], an RfC/U has to be closed manually, correct? ] (]) 19:13, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

:::Correct, and it should be by an uninvolved party. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 19:20, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
:::: ] (]) 19:39, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
:::::Sure. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 20:54, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

==RfC listing procedure is troublesome==

Lots of people fail to use the template correctly, it appears. I have no idea. I put a template RFCsci on ] and it appears there correctly but not on the list. What am I doing wrong. Why is this such a common problem?] (]) 20:52, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

:It did not work because you did not follow ]. Instead of typing <code>|section=RFC Wilderness Diarrhea </code>, you typed <code>|Wilderness Diarrhea=full article</code>. Let me suggest that you look closely at ] and try again.
:Alternatively, you can post a note at a related WikiProject, such as ], ], or ]. A questions at any of those projects might actually be more appropriate than an RfC on the whole article. ] (]) 23:54, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

:The current listing procedure is pointless. We should be posting RfCs manually, and taking them down manually. That way they would show up on watchlists, and people would be forced to glance over the existing ones periodically. The bot doesn't add any value. ] | (] - ]) 23:57, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

::Start? That was the old method. I do think it worked better... ] 00:04, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
:::So you think it would work better if it involved multiple end-user steps, like setting up an AfD? (Paste this template into the article. Click here. Edit the page name manually if it's the second AfD. Write a description. Use this edit summary. Click someplace else. Paste a different template. Use this other edit summary...)
:::The existing RfC system works fine for me, and I don't think that a manual system is likely to improve matters. ] (]) 02:57, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

::::You've failed to engage any of my arguments, especially the most important one: when a RFC is put up manually, it shows up on the watchlist. The current RFC template is extremely confusing. You don't automatically know if you've done it right because the bot comes around later. I've done it a couple times, and each time I found it to be extremely irritating. Worse, I got no extra feedback. The RFCs that I did generated no extra comments, making them pointless. I have every RFC category watchlisted. I get no notifications on my watchlists.

::::We already use edit summaries and write descriptions with the current procedure. I don't know what you're talking about, really, so actually, I can't engage your comment. ] | (] - ]) 07:21, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
::::::Do you have your watchlist set to ignore bot edits? ] (]) 20:21, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

:::::::I changed it when you made that comment, thanks. All I'm seeing is the same thing I saw before I ignored bot edits: updated ''template'' pages which say there's such ans such ''number'' of discussions active. I want a notification each time a RFC gets listed. I have every single one of the pages active. Have you ever actually seen the ] page (or one of the subpages) actually on your watchlist when someone puts up a RFC? I would do a test RFCpolicy here, but I dread working with that template. A testament to how little attention people pay to the ] page is evident in that the ] section has a mistaken edit from the 21st of August. In fact, before a month ago or so, the RFC page didn't even link to ] or any of its important subpages anywhere. It linked to, bizarrely, ] at the top, a testament, again, to the obsessiveness with which Misplaced Pages revolves around politics, name-calling, backslapping, and other bullshit. I changed it. ] | (] - ]) 17:42, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
::::::::Then you're getting what's available. You have to have both bot and minor edits shown. The bot doesn't always edit the page separately for each addition or removal. It makes several updates at once, like . If you want to see what it did, you have to look at the diffs. Note that it never edits the page to do nothing (e.g., just to report the current number), so if it's in your watchlist, there's been a change.
::::::::You could suggest to the bot's owner that the edit summary be expanded. S/he might be willing to change ''Update, 12 current discussions'' to ''Update, 2 RfCs ended, 12 current discussions''. ] (]) 05:24, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

== Listing in more than one subject area ==

Since no one responded to this problem with the template system, and the old system was simple and worked well, I am going to revert to the old system without the templates. —]→]&nbsp;&bull; 15:56, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
:Done. —]→]&nbsp;&bull; 15:24, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The "watch" links at ] still point to the templates you deleted. —]] 16:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

::So today? This is a major change affecting dozens of pages. Your deletion has broken several pages and the instructions are now wrong. Please reverse your changes and make a proper proposal to the entire community. ] (]) 17:42, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

:::Your comment ignores entirely and is irrelevant to the problem I raised a month ago and again last week. This is a change the affects ] and subpages, and the instructions are changed to reflect the template change. —]→]&nbsp;&bull; 18:19, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

::::My comment clearly states my opposition to removing the template-based system. ] (]) 19:58, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

==Deletion of content by the request from the original writer==
Hello! I am a wiki user from Hong Kong. I would like to know that could I require a deletion of content if I am the main writer of that content even there are some minor changes by other users in an particular article? For example, I am the main writer of an article about a bus company and I contribute many details like the history about it. However, there are some minor correction about spelling mistakes by other users and later on I don't want to have the details shown on that article. Do I have the right to delete that history content? --] (]) 07:33, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
:There do not appear to be any bus companies in your contribution history? —]→]&nbsp;&bull; 15:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
::It is just an example. The main point is that do I have the right to delete the content which is mainly contributed by me although there are some minor changes by other users? Thanks for your comment!--] (]) 03:51, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
:::Technically, the answer is no. Your contributions are associated with an irrevocable license and you have no ] to delete your contributions.
:::Having said that, any editor may change any article, so long as the change "improves" the article. For this purpose, Misplaced Pages generally accepts any plausible definition of improvement. Making the article more concise or giving less attention given to a minor aspect is an improvement. Similarly, removing unsourced/unverifiable information is also an improvement.
:::Of course, any other editor could change it back to the previous version if they think the previous version was better. ] (]) 19:41, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

::::If you are the primary author (other changes are all minor) and the article is something that meets the criteria for ] or ], you can certainly put in a deletion request and see what happens. --] 02:09, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

==RfC changes==
I see that a lot of the RfC templates were suddenly deleted, so there's redlinks all over the wiki at the moment. Was there a discussion about this, and if so, could someone please point me at it? Thanks, ]]] 16:05, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
:I saw the same thing and it doesn't make sense. Maybe the deleting admin didn't realize they were infrequently used. I've queried Messedrocker since his bot is the one who would read those templates. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 16:06, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
:: Looking at Centrx's comments on the talkpage above, it appears he may have just decided to take things into his own hands and change the system by himself. --]]] 17:05, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

:::That was pretty premature. ] | (] - ]) 17:35, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
::::I waited more than four weeks. This is simply a revert to the old system, not an invention. —]→]&nbsp;&bull; 18:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

::::There was no discussion. There was a complaint from an editor that misunderstood the directions for using the RFC template. ] (]) 17:43, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

:::::There was no misunderstanding. These templates do not support listing RfCs in multiple categories. I raised this issue on August 8, with no response. I then stated my intentions to correct this problem on August 29. —]→]&nbsp;&bull; 18:12, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
:::::: Centrx, it's one thing to be ], and it's another to make a major change to a widely-used system on Misplaced Pages, without consensus. Please reconsider your actions here, especially as you used administrator access to do this, and no one is agreeing with your change. --]]] 19:10, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
:::::::This system is confined to RfC and the change reverts to a functional system that was used for years. No one has presented any solution to the faults of the automated template system, which others evidently object to, or why it should continue to be used. I can revert these changes, which are numerous only in terms of the number of edits necessary because of the rigmarole that is RfC with the templates, but it would be a waste to do so for no reason, and when no one had any issue with the change for a month. Also, administrator access was not used to make this change; the adjunct pages I deleted for housekeeping can be restored separately, but they would be useless. —]→]&nbsp;&bull; 19:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

:::::::::Hm, Centrx didn't even bother to ask the bot owner to implement the feature he wanted. Or even to point out that he was making the bot unnecessary. Not exactly a stellar effort to get any consensus, is this? Centrx, can you identify ''any'' editor that supports your change? ] (]) 20:01, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

::::::::::I advertised on the relevant talk page. If there was any objection to this change, someone would have made it on this talk page once in that month. The last time I made a major change to RFC, I advertised in all the places you might think, and received no response except a litany of "me-too". Can you identify any reason why this change is not right? —]→]&nbsp;&bull; 20:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
::::::::::: Because plenty of people are perfectly happy with the existing system, which is being used in dozens of articles without major problems. To make an analogy here, it's sort of like you posted at the talkpage of ] and said, "I think this is a bad policy", then when no one replied a month later, you went ahead and deleted the entire thing. There are some cases where it's okay to be bold, and there are other massive parts of Misplaced Pages where a simple case of "no one replied to my comment" is ''not'' sufficient to say that there's consensus. Administrators are expected to have the judgment to be able to tell the difference. If someone genuinely wants to change the RfC system, post at the Village Pump, bring it up at ], make it clear that if no one objects, you are going to proceed. But don't just assume that silence implies consent, when dealing with something that's used in so many different parts of the project. Now, as for the actual proposed change, I have to say that I like the current template system since it makes it relatively easy to file an RfC. Easier even than an AfD, which requires chasing through multiple different pages. I do think the template system could be even easier to use though. For one, there's very little feedback if the template is used incorrectly. For another, it's difficult to tell in a watchlist, when there's a new request posted. Even if I have the actual include template on my watchlist, all I see is "template updated". Better would be if there were an edit summary that went into detail about the latest changes. --]]] 00:13, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
::::::::::::A comment at ] would have received a response, because it is a "massive part of Misplaced Pages", but RFC is not and did not receive a response for that reason. The analogous situation at ] would be a mere change in the policy, not a deletion. Changing WP:RFC is not a big change and it works perfectly fine without the bot. —]→]&nbsp;&bull; 16:21, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Listing pages in multiple categories can be done with the use of additional templates. For example, a matter that covers both the arts and science can use the RFCmedia tag and the RFCsci tag. This is a practice I've seen used many times. I do admit, though, that the syntax can be very confusing to someone not accustomed to the workings of wiki syntax, and so I will see what I can do to make it easier while maintaining backwards compatibility. --] 00:16, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
:The template displayed on the talk pages is already massive and ugly. It may work if the templates are reduced to a single, simple one-line sentence without images. —]→]&nbsp;&bull; 16:21, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
::There is no need to maintaining backwards compatibility. Just create new templates the old ones will fade away when the RfCs that use them end. editors who wish to publish an RfC will not care how complicated the internal syntax is so long as the parameters that they need to enter when calling the template are kept clean and simple (few in number with clear names). I would have thought an outer skin named after the listing for the RFC, with one or two parameters the first the text the second (if needed and can not be auto-generated by the bot that does the listing, the date tilders). Then make it clear in the instructions on this project page that multiple listings means multiple templates. --] (]) 10:18, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

*'''Use the template system''' (''not the list system''). I think the template system is a vast improvement over the old list system and that the template system should be reinstated immediately. Arguments such as "complicated syntax" and "massive and ugly" are valid arguments, but listing was simpler with a one stop template (less steps to follow and get wrong). I say fix the template if there is a problem don't go back to the old complicated system. --] (]) 10:06, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
:BTW. I came here to ask where the list of templates mentioned in had gone in], and to comment that the new/old instruction "In the relevant topic area, listed below, link to that section on the Talk page." is confusing as the list is to the right not below. --] (]) 10:06, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

== Protection? ==

Why is ] protected? -- ] 03:41, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

:The relevant edit says "(Protected Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Art, architecture, literature and media: Not a DR forum )". I don't know what ] means, but perhaps you could ask the admin that protected it. ] (]) 19:30, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

::Seems it was just overlooked when the templates were merged back with the main page listings. -- ] 04:28, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

== Bot listing? ==

I don't know anything about the use-non-use of the bot, but can someone who knows how it works get it to list ] on the policy RFC page? If the solution is something easy or something I did wrong, please let me know so I can avoid messing that up in the future. ] (]) 04:39, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
:It seems the bot only works on talk pages now, which is odd because it used to work on any page. Several RfCs are in the project namespace, instead of the project talk namespace. -- ] 04:27, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
:: I don't remember such a feature being added. --] 19:27, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

== Date bug ==

It semms that on the topical subpages (arts, politics, bios, etc), the dates are a month in the future. This is a bug somehere, I would think. What's up? ]&nbsp;(]) 16:35, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

:It's not a bug. It's the date that the RFC will be closed by the bot. ] (]) 05:37, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

== Misplaced Pages talk:Reliable sources (medicine-related articles) ==

An editor tried to add an RFC template to ] but it errors. I tried to fix it, twice and still can't figure out what is wrong. Could someone please help. Thanks ]°] 14:11, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

:I twiddled with it a bit - let's see if that fixes it. really, I didn't see anything off except (maybe) some spacing issues. --] 22:25, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

== RfCTemplate error ==

Add me to the list of those who got an error for no apparent reason on the template, as used on ]. An error message with no explanation is not good (or I could have said, very Microsoft-ish of you). :) Unless the person running the bot can fix it, I give up. --] (]) 13:26, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
:Well I don't run the bot, but I'll try give it a shot - it might also be where you placed the tag. ] (]) 14:42, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
::Thanks, it appeared to work when you moved it to the section. I had put it at the top of the page. Since part of the tag points to the section, it seemed redundant to put it in the section itself. The instructions just say to put the tag on the page; it doesn't say where. I'm going to let the bot know about this. --] (]) 16:00, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
:::Ah, it's an artifact of Centrx's attempt to delete the bot recently. I've restored the correct instructions. Please let me know if the instructions about the template could be improved. ] (]) 18:47, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
::::It would help if you would show a better example so we'd know what to put inside section - ie I put in Talk:Christina_Hoff_Sommers#Criticism_of_Hoff_Sommers_Ok.2C_Just_needs_to_be_WP:NOR_and_WP:RS but just got an error message. (It seems to me i used another page as an example but can only find this one now.) Carol Moore 12:40, 18 September 2008 (UTC)] ]
:::::I think you might have been better off reading the #Instructions instead of the example. I think I've fixed the problem at your page (if not, you might try removing the underscores (_) from between the words in the section name. I've added some tips to the example; you're not the first person to have this problem. ] (]) 17:12, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
:::::: Some feedback, in case it's helpful: At ] it took the editors there 3 tries to get the bot to work. The syntax was ''almost'' right, but they just kept getting "error" back: The problem seemed to be with getting the "time" field properly formatted. Do we really need that? Seems to me that the bot could probably fill it in automatically. Or perhaps, give immediate feedback when the template is used? For example, if I try to {{tl|prod}} an article and I forget the subst, I get a big red message right in the preview screen. Maybe the RfC templates could be tweaked accordingly, that they'd give immediate feedback as to whether they were right or not when someone hits "preview", rather than them having to wait an hour for the next bot pulse? --]]] 17:48, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
::::::::I don't think the bot is smart enough to provide useful feedback. In the named case, it was a failure to follow instructions: "Sign with '''five''' tildes, to present a timestamp but no signature." ] (]) 18:29, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

== RFC Policy ==

I'm trying to find, and have been unable to, the policy on changing an RFC once discussion about it has begun. In particular, see ]. If you look at the first version, you will see what the complaint and desired resolution were. Discussion about those continued on the page. Then, when it appeared that the RFC wasn't going the way some users liked, the complaint and desired resolution were changed to make the discussion appear to have a different meaning. It is, to me, the equivalent of having a survey which asks "Do you like oysters?" Then, if someone answers "No. I hate them," I change the question to "Do you like minority people?" It gives the discussion of the question a completely different meaning. So, I think there must be ''some'' policy. I just can't find it. -- ]] 00:12, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
:The link is ]. User RfCs, as it states plainly on this page, are unpredictable beasts: "An RfC may bring close scrutiny on all involved editors." There is no requirement that the "close scrutiny" be limited to the original dispute, the original article, the original editor, or anything else.
:Your task is to write a thoughtful and carefully reasoned response; it belongs in the "response" section. Note that -- according to the directions on the page -- you should not be editing any other section or arguing with people about their views. If you have comments or questions about something that someone else has written, then you should take it up on the talk page, instead of under "Users certifying the basis for this dispute." ] (]) 01:44, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

::The discussion section states "Do not post anything here". It appears to me that the RFC is specifically designed to ensure that the user in question is not allowed to participate. Honestly, who is going to take the time to go to the talk page? It appears that the RFC process is a bigger joke than the Philcha's complaint. -- ]] 12:10, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
:::I've spent a lot of time on RFC talk pages; in many instances, I spend ''more'' time on the talk pages than on the main page.
:::You are not required to respect the RFC process. No RFC/U can impose any form of sanctions on any unwilling editor. (It might happen to get the attention of an independent admin that finds a user's behavior blockable, but that's technically a different process.)
:::Failure to participate constructively may result in editors getting disgusted with you, or bored with the process and leaving you alone. On the other hand, it may also result in further escalation through the ] process. The only thing I think we can guarantee is this: ''If'' you end up at ArbCom, and you have not demonstrated a good faith effort to find a workable compromise, then your attitude ''will'' be counted against you -- even if the complaints against you are ultimately dismissed.
:::In the end, how you respond is entirely up to you: you're the one that will have to live with the consequences of your choices. ] (]) 00:50, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

::::I read through the RFC page repeatedly and did not find anywhere where it said "This is where you respond if the RFC is about you". I was left with the impression that I was not supposed to respond in any way on the RFC. Imagine a process in which a person is accused, but not allowed to respond or defend himself. That was my impression of the RFC. I have finally seen that I was supposed to respond in the Response section - which I have done. It is actually good that I took so long to respond as I was able to explain in the response that the discussion on the RFC is about the original statement, not about the amended one designed to make the responses appear to have a completely different meaning. -- ]] 01:45, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
::::::As you seem to have discovered, your response belongs in the section that starts "This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed". Perhaps we should update ] to include that instruction as well.
::::::Are there any outside views on adding a sentence like "Your comments are welcome on the RFC page in the section labeled ''Response''."? ] (]) 18:15, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

== error in instructions ==
{{resolved3}}

<s>i asked at the Help Desk but they've directed me here with my anxiety: i'm trying to post an RfC on ]:
http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Pop_music#RfC:_What_is_the_intended_subject_of_this_article.3F
but it looks too weird to be right! i've read the instructions six times and can't see where i went wrong, so if someone can help with it i'd be very grateful, thanks ] (]) 21:06, 25 September 2008 (UTC)</s>

'''update:''' okay, i figured it out: the instructions on the RfC page say the "codename" to use in the template for art/music/etc-related articles is "RFCart", but that leads to some very bizarre and confusing results. the "codename" to use is "RFCmedia". i've fixed my own RfC post on the pop-music talk page, but i hope someone can correct the instructions - thanks ] (]) 21:26, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

it's been fixed now - thanks ] (]) 23:19, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

== should "no original research" preclude ab directo prima facie observation? ==

Ok, so I'm listening to this guy complimenting me and I think "I don't want this guy to think I want compliments but I don't want to be rude" so I say something that suddenly people the world over say - circa 2003 - and I think to myself "Why the heck does everyone want to say _that_?" so I observe for myself the structure of what I said. I observe and I come to the conclusion that all idioms are structured in the same way. I think of examples. Sure enough, the explanation is the same... always the same.

Only I'm not at university. I don't want to go back. I don't have time for this trivial piece of information... except, there's this database on the internet that everyone refers to that has a whole entire page of examination of exactly this subject and NONE of it is right, because if you test for yourself, like any scientist, sceptic or truth-seeker should, what the explanation is WITH WHAT IS RIGHT IN FRONT OF YOU, you will find that the explanation I have is correct. So I enter the explanation.

Then someone deletes it... after admitting that it is an amusing observation (naturally cited with immediately observable proofs).

Now, I know what you're thinking "Is this guy who thinks he knows something crackpot or is he telling the truth and just laughing at Misplaced Pages now?" Well actually, I'm only laughing a little bit. That's because I'm giving you a chance: there is such a thing that does not need government funded research to be true and yes, some people call it interesting knowledge. In fact, there is truth, the knowledge of which can be built upon! But will wikipedia recognize it, even as it puts up pages on pop-culture trivia that has nothing to do with intellectual pursuit whatsoever?

Have you forgotten that it is intellectual pursuit that was the basis of universities around the world, not government funded research programs? Or did you suppose that now that your mind is hidden in your skull, you can go about research a hero because you have not actually used it and still done something that passes for intelligence? I do not mean to insult you, but merely challenge you.

What I "discovered", if you can call something so "banal" a discovery, is something I could explain to a five year old and you will remember that that was Einstein's test of real knowledge!

The way I see it, there are two ways you can cope. Both are equally good. One, you can overturn this "must be paid for observation" rule - I will pay to put this on wikipedia for crying out loud (don't question my motives) - two, you can develop a system whereby knowledge is verified (the latter is the more complex of the two options).

All it takes to verify what I have observed is the following, ask yourself this: does "you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink?" sound at all like you can make it drink? The honest answer is "yes, it sounds like you are saying it can be made to drink because 'o' in "horse" becomes 'o' in "to" like a horse being led to drink, 'a' 'e' in water making a "satisfied" sound (a painful vowel followed by pleasurable one)". All idioms in english follow the same statement vs intonation contradiction (I believe Chinese idioms may be similar: intonation vs reference contradictions).

Do you think you need to go to University to know that?

::Misplaced Pages attempts to collect information that is ], not true. This page isn't the correct place to contest these rules anyway. ] (]) 22:43, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

::::Ingenius as your reply appears to be, there are things that are verifiably true. One does not need a logarithm to verify that 1 + 1 = 2. If I discovered 1 + 1 = 2 and believed it to be noteworthy for colleagues who would observe it the same, would I not contribute it? But as with all things, there is a time and a place, as the next poster so helpfully points out.

::You can post original research at Wikinfo. ] (]) 10:39, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

::::Thankyou so much for your contribution. I have made a brief entry at Wikinfo. Hopefully, that will be the seed enough for future thought on the subject.

==] article RfC==

User Bob (QaBob) (]) has requested an RfC without going through any normal process of discussion , which would normally require giving interested editors time to discuss his suggestion to move the article. In fact, after his initial suggestion yesterday, and request then for comment, he actually moved the article, and changed the links in about 100 articles other article to the new name he created. I really do not consider any of this acceptable. In any case, I do not think discussion has reached the point that justifies an RfC. ] (]) 14:33, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

:The point of an RfC is to gather a broader consensus of editors. Reading though ], it was clear that the article had been dominated for some time by those with a more or less limited view of the subject. Thus I felt the need for more eyes on the issue. ] (]) 14:37, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

::The simple fact is that you suggested the move yesterday, and requested the RfC the same day. How do you know that discussion with interested editors would not resolve the issue? ] (]) 14:44, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

:::Because of your repeated removal of the <nowiki>{{unbalanced}}</nowiki> tag. You seem to have a vested interest in ''not'' attracting more eyes. If you had not repeatedly removed it, I would have been happy to wait for the responses of other editors. You shot yourself in your own foot by edit warring over the tag. ] (]) 14:50, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

::::You had placed no explanation, on the article talk page, to justify the reason for the tag. When you explained, I stopped removing the tag. I do not think asking for an explanation is an excessive demand. An explanation is considered normal. ] (]) 15:04, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

:::::Yes, I had. Twice. One section entitled "Proposed move" and a subsection entitled "Unbalanced". However I will ] and assume that there was a datebase lag so that you somehow did not see updates to the Talk page on your watchlist even though you clearly saw the updates to the article itself. Why don't you do the same, stop forum shopping, and we can just go forward with the formal move process? Okay? ] (]) 15:08, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

There is no justification for the RfC without first taking the time to discuss the issues with interested editors. Just what is the big rush? ] (]) 15:17, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

:I am not asking your permission for anything, Malcolm. I have offered my explanation because your understanding is (in my view) incorrect, but if you get it, or not, is just not my concern. In any case, now that the process is started, I don't feel there is any rush. Do you? ] (]) 15:21, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

::What reason is there for not removing the RfC tag?] (]) 16:27, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

:::The reason is that the RfC is still ongoing. What reason is there for removing it? It's certainly not hurting anything. ] (]) 17:29, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
::::Bob, this RFC sounds premature. Vexatious use of the dispute resolution process wastes Misplaced Pages's resources and irritates people. You have the ''right'' to start an RFC at any point, but standing on your rights is not always the ''wisest'' course of action. It's generally best to follow the advice about RFCs: "Before asking outside opinion here, it generally helps to simply discuss the matter on the article talk page first. Whatever the disagreement, the first step in resolving a dispute is to talk to the other parties involved." Starting an RFC with no discussion is an indication that you are not only failing to assume good faith, but probably also pushing your POV.
::::At any rate, this 'tis/'tisn't sort of conversation doesn't belong here and doesn't serve the encyclopedia. Malcolm, I suggest that you invest your energy in locating the best possible reliable sources to argue against Bob (assuming that you disagree with his suggestion). RFCs of this sort very frequently backfire. ] (]) 19:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

:::::In point of fact, I started a discussion. At the time, Malcolm declined to respond on the talk page, instead repeatedly removing a template from the article. Then I started the RfC. I may very well be in the wrong, but I think the discussion deserves input from generalist in the area of religion as well as specialist in the topic of Kabbalah. ] (]) 19:16, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

::::::Bob's account of the placing of this RfC seems to be correct. He restored the unbalanced tag @ 1256 & the RfC @ 1257. His placing of the RfC can reasonably be regarded as a response to the deletion of the tag. I'd be inclined to react similarly, tho' I'm not an expert on WP procedure. It seems to me he's doing what he should have done before, instead of moving the article unilaterally. ] (]) 11:08, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

==Paladin==
I tried to start an RfC at ], but something's not working and I can't tell what. It may just be beyond my limited capabilities. Help?--] ]/] 22:11, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
:Cuchullain, if you have a look at this it might help:
::http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment&curid=449893&diff=242842550&oldid=242561957#error_in_instructions
:it looks to me like you used "RFCart" in your template just like i did in mine before discovering that it should be "RFCmedia".
:in your case, though, isn't the history section more appropriate than the media/art/etc section? for history-related topics the code to use in the template is "RFChist" - if the instructions are correct, that is! ] (]) 22:22, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

::Thanks a lot, I'll have a go with that.--] ]/] 22:45, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

== Adding an RfC manually ==

Is this still allowed, and if it is, can anyone advise how to do it? <font color="Brown">]</font> <small><sup><font color="darkgreen">]</font><font color="Light green">]</font></sup></small> 16:32, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
:What sort of RFC? User conduct RFCs are 100% manual; process and article RFC work in conjunction with a bot and are not listed manually. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 16:47, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
::An article RfC. I've used the template this time, but I'd like to do it manually in future. There's a sentence where the template method is described that to do it manually you click on a link that says "add discussion" (writing from memory), but then when you look, there is no such link, or if there is, it's not clear where it is. <font color="Brown">]</font> <small><sup><font color="darkgreen">]</font><font color="Light green">]</font></sup></small> 16:59, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
:::I think that was phased out in favor of having a bot do all the listings for article RFC, basically its now "fill out a template on the article talk page and a bot will list/categorize it" ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 17:01, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
::::That's right. I'm not sure why there'd be a want to do it manually, but apparently if you try to do it manually, you'll be reverted by the bot. ] (]) 18:16, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
:It can be done; there's one at ] right now. ] (]) 19:15, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
::Okay, thanks for the replies, everyone. NCMV, I just prefer to do these things manually, because working out how to use the templates always seems to take longer, for me anyway. :-) <font color="Brown">]</font> <small><sup><font color="darkgreen">]</font><font color="Light green">]</font></sup></small> 19:41, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
:::Oh, that's okay. :) A lot of people were having trouble with the templates in the past few months too. ] (]) 17:25, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

== ] ==

May I please get some comment on ] for ]? I did what it says, and no one was paid any attention. These people keep added the content back, and I don't want to get into a 3RR over this. Please help me. God bless, '''] (])''' 04:53, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

== sorry ==

i am sorry for editing on those pages i didnt mean anythhing out of it i didnt know it was bad.im sorry it will not happen again.thankyou

== circular RfC entry ==


:Still waitin on those examples, btw. ] (]) 19:27, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
could someone please have a look at ]? someone appears to have listed the RfC list itself as a subject of an RfC, which is weird enough as it is; to make it weirder, if you click the "add a discussion" thing, the text you see in "edit" mode has no apparent relation to what you see in "read" mode. it seems appropriate to notify whoever was trying to list those RfCs that they need to try again, but i can't figure out who the editors were. ] (]) 17:41, 1 November 2008 (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)
: I guess the root of the problem is the template
:::Then I am not interested in your theorizing, fair's fair. ] (]) 19:35, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
:<nowiki> {{RFCecon| section=VistaPrint !! reason= I tagged the page as I perceived NPOV issues, extraneous material and unwarranted minimising/omission of well-known ongoing consumer complaints issues. Editors of page are self-admitted PR workers for VistaPrint. As I have limited experience, please help adjudge/convert this page to WKP norms !! time= 23:18, 23 October 2008 (UTC) }}</nowiki>
::::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)
: placed in the page ] by user ]. I have no clue how to fix it though. ]]-]-] 22:16, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
:::::I would, tho. ] (]) 17:33, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
:: thanks for taking an interest <s>- it's getting curiouser and curiouser, though! where did the "candidate for speedy deletion" tag come from?! that wasn't there before! and why isn't the tag visible in "edit mode"??</s>
: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)
:: thanks for verifying that Centrepull posted the RfC - i did leave a message about it for him/her a few days ago, but never heard back from him/her, and today i couldn't figure out how i'd worked out that he/she was the probable poster of it. i was going to remove the RfC template myself, but i can't see it in "edit mode" - can you?? in "edit mode" (clicking the "add a discussion" thing) all i see is a totally different RfC-type text ... it's like ]! 8) ] (]) 22:38, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
:: '''edit:''' okay, the speedy deletion tag has vanished now ... but it really was there a few minutes ago! ] (]) 22:42, 1 November 2008 (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)
::: Well, the speedy tag was from me, but I decided to remove it, until the request for comment is moved to the proper page...]]-]-] 22:43, 1 November 2008 (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 is a subpage named '''manual''' inside the main page, this is why I put the '''speedy''', but then I removed it until the comment is moved to wherever it should be, this is what I do not know, is it the talk page for ]?
::It's just an info page. ] (]) 15:44, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
::::ah so ... thank you for clarifying. meanwhile, i located that subpage and removed the misplaced RfC template from there - on the "be bold" principle, and since i've already notified Centrepull about the error - but it doesn't seem to have affected the listing on the RFC/A page. maybe it takes a bit of time to process? anyway, i'll leave another note for Centrepull about it ... thanks for your help and for taking an interest. ] (]) 22:52, 1 November 2008 (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)
::::: This last part was work of the RFCbot, which automatically includes pages with the rfc template in the page ], I removed it now...]]-]-] 22:57, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
::That’s some technical skill required to uncover what should be easy, making discovering the anonymous author easy for some and hard for others. ] (]) 06:15, 17 December 2024 (UTC)


== RfCs about ] ==
(undent) yeah, i understand that the bot puts pages on the list, but it's also supposed to take them off the list when the template's removed - oh well, maybe it was just a bit slow this time. meanwhile ... clicking on the "add a discussion" thing in each section on the RFC/A page, it turns out they all have the same text in them, which is different from what you see in "read" mode - that doesn't seem right! especially since the text is a bit weird: it starts off about a bio but ends up being about some linguistic issue. the subpage it's on seems to be ] - is that the way it's supposed to be?? ] (]) 00:01, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
: No this is a misuse of the template, this is why I already started another section below, for somebody to fix it. ]]-]-] 00:17, 2 November 2008 (UTC)


There's an ongoing discussion here: ] ] (]) 11:38, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
== Bug in the '''Template:RFC list footer''' template ==


== RFC on signing RFCs ==
{{atop
| result = There seems to be general consensus against any change. {{nac}} ] (]) 21:40, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
}}


<!-- ] 19:01, 18 December 2024 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1734548467}}
When the template is transcluded in any of the '''Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/<whatever>''' pages it creates a link
'''Manually-added entries: ''' which opens an edit in the '''Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/<watever>/manual''' page. But when this pages are transcluded in the ] page, this link redirects to the ] page instead of the '''Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/watever/manual''' as it should. I think somebody who knows about how templates work, should fix this. ]]-]-] 00:07, 2 November 2008 (UTC)


Should the words "or <nowiki>~~~~~</nowiki> (just the time and date)" be removed from statement 5 of ]?
: As a temporary solution I try to substitute the template and the page name and it worked for a while, until the RFCbot revert my changes and replaced the original template. Out of ideas... ]]-]-] 00:20, 2 November 2008 (UTC)


] (]) 18:18, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
:: Fixed, I add <nowiki>{{{1}}}</nowiki> in the template, but I had to revert all the redirections to make it work without touching the code of the RCFbot. ]]-]-] 03:04, 2 November 2008 (UTC)


== A Muppalla == ===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.] (]) 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===
MUPPALLA is a reputed village in Ipur mandal,Guntur District,Andhra Pradesh.And also called as Arepalli Muppalla, since there are some other places with the same name. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 21:08, 2 November 2008 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
], the bot just pulled the tag. It's been 20 days since the last comment. Do you want to write the closing summary yourself, or do you want to list this at ]? (See the FAQ at the top of this page and #4 in ] if you weren't aware that you have that option.) ] (]) 01:23, 14 December 2024 (UTC)


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


== ArbCom limits on RFC comments ==
I assume its some sort of template? ] (]) 23:11, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
:An RFC/U will be delisted after about 30 days of inactivity, or when a request for arbitration on the matter is accepted - alternatively, it may be closed upon the dispute being resolved amongst the parties (whether this is by explicit agreement in the RFC/U, or if a party is sanctioned). ] (]) 08:04, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
::RFC's on user are not closed by bots but by inivolved third parties (in this case me). How is this done? ] (]) 13:41, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
:::Um, this may just be a typo, but RfC/U's are closed by UNinvolved people.
:::As for ''what'' to do, the most important thing to remember is that an RfC/U cannot, under any circumstance, actually impose a solution on unwilling partners. So the closer actually has very little power beyond the ]. This is part of ], not "crime and punishment".
:::As for ''how'' to do it, ] closes a lot of them; I'd look at one or two of the recently closed ones, and perhaps his contributions log, and use those as patterns. (Actually, I would probably just ask him to do it when he had a few minutes free... but if I were trying to reduce his workload, then I'd copy his pattern.) ] (]) 04:49, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
::::Thanks. Uninvolved of course. Was going to close one I read on RFC/a that seems to need closing. ] (]) 05:41, 8 November 2008 (UTC)


Just FYI:
===Closures by Wizardman===
On the occasion of a recent closure by Wizardman, I'll put on record that I strongly object to that new-fangled practice, apparently invented by him recently, that a self-appointed "closer" finishes the RFC with a "concluding statement", which purports to be an authoritative summary of its results, like a final judgment. There is no need for any such, and nothing that would authorise an editor to provide one.


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).
Closing an RfC means simply archiving it, and, at most, adding a factual notice about concrete outcomes such as bans or referrals to Arbcom that have actually resulted. But a final assessment of the weight or merit of opinions expressed in it is not something any individual is entitled to have a final say about. If anybody wants to provide such an assessment summary, as their personal opinion, they are welcome to do so, but in the form everybody else does it, as an "outside view". To add such a comment and then immediately close the process, making it by necessity the "final word", means assuming a position of self-appointed authority and giving your personal opinion an appearance of weight above that of others, in a way that is simply not legitimate. ] ] 10:29, 10 November 2008 (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)
:As I noted on your talk page, it was not appropriate for you to refactor another uninvolved editor's comment for an RFC you're the subject of (or clearly and unambiguously involved in). That said, your concern is noted.


== How long is the result of an RFC valid for? ==
:Wizardman and myself have been closing RFCs regularly for sometime (Wizardman since July, and myself since somewhere in April), but our styles vary - basically, on the point you've raised. Generally, if I've added a summary, it is per our norms since 2006: for either concrete outcomes, if an editor has stopped editing Misplaced Pages, or on the rare occasion where only one outside view has been made and endorsed unambiguously. Otherwise, it's been a straight delist and archive, and I'm happy to have had no issues so far.


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)
:Wizardman has usually taken delisting/archiving one step further by attempting to summarise the outside views made and warn concerned users where it appears there is a conduct problem. On a couple of occasions, off memory, I've objected to some of the closes and made modifications (if I was made aware of this close earlier, this would've been another one). But I didn't think it was an issue, given that there was some support for his style by some of the community, and no vocal objections, particularly by ArbCom (given that they've done a case proceeding an RFC closed by Wizardman: ]). I think more community input on this issue will be worthwhile. ] (]) 12:12, 10 November 2008 (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)
:The RFC is about your user conduct, it is clearly improper for you to be editing the closing admin's comments, per the RFC instructions and the general arbcom admonition for uninvolved administrators to close discussions that have reached their natural end. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 13:12, 10 November 2008 (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".
:: You are just as involed as I am, so why are ''you'' edit-warring over it? As for your argumentation, it is clearly invald: closing judgments are only appropriate in decision-making processes that end in concrete administrative action, such as a naming dispute ending in a page move, or an AfD ending in deletion. RfCs simply aren't ''decision''-making processes in that sense. There is no factual need for a closing statement of any sort. ] ] 13:14, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
::As a widely advertised discussion, an RFC should be assumed to represent the community's view at that time.
:Wizardman simply determined what the consensus of the RfC was - he wasn't making judgement on anyone. In this case, I think he got it spot on. Of course, what he says isn't binding but it would be good to strongly consider the points he made or this could move onto greater levels of dispute resolution in the future. It's entirely up to you Fut. Now, I've just archived it now and left Wizardman's comment as an outside view simply to put it to bed. ''']<sup>See ] or ]</sup>''' 13:15, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
::@], there is no set rule against immediately contesting a decision (assuming a consensus formed). However, if you run the same question less than six months later, you can expect someone to complain. ] (]) 02:10, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
::This is not about ''what'' he said (in fact, I'm not in the least interested in what he said; I hardly read it except for a very superficial skimming); it's about ''how'' he said it. And yes, from the fragments I did read it looked like he was laying down the law and, on his own authority, "cautioning" this and that. If he wants do do so, privately, no problem, but from an assumed position of authority? No, just no. ] ] 13:20, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
:::That's understandable. ] (]) 02:41, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Well, as I said, it's your choice entirely how you take his comment. I would personally be pleased that someone neutral came along to determine what the RfC is saying and try hard to follow their advice. It's non-binding, but arbcom wouldn't look favourable if problems persisted and the advice wasn't taken. ''']<sup>See ] or ]</sup>''' 13:26, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
:::: It's not like he was saying anything new, was he? There was a short moment some time two months ago when there was some actual talk going on it that RfC, and everything that needed to be said was said back then. Since then it has merely lingered on as a playground of trolls and clowns (just look at some of the last few outside views); it's lost every last shred of legitimacy as far as I'm concerned. ] ] 13:32, 10 November 2008 (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
Archiving icon
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)