Misplaced Pages

Latest revision as of 00:49, 18 January 2025

NOTE: This talk page is not the place to post notices of disputes or requests for comment, or to ask questions about changes you would like to make to individual articles. Please follow Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment.

Are you having trouble getting your RfC listed? Please make sure the bot hasn't been turned off. If the bot hasn't run in the last few hours, then please alert the bot's owner. If the bot is apparently running, then the problem is almost certainly with the template formatting. To get help with formatting the template correctly, please leave a message, including the name of the page where you want to start the RfC, at the bottom of this page.

view · edit Frequently asked questions The RfC question isn't neutral! Wikipedians are rarely swayed by a non-neutral question. They've got their own minds and they'll come to their own conclusions. A non-neutral question might be a good reason to fix the question, but it is not grounds to halt or re-start the RfC. If you believe that a question is non-neutral, you are better off simply participating in the RfC to present arguments about the underlying dispute. An additional comment about the question's neutrality may or may not be appropriate, depending on its relevance to those arguments. The RFC question is not brief. Can I fix it? The "question" is the part that shows up on the RFC listing pages (example of listing page). If the RFC question itself is substantially longer than all the others and you are not appearing in the role of the loyal opposition, then you can copy a small part the original question plus the original timestamp (not usually the name) to the top or write a simplified question. If, however, the person who started the RFC discussion might consider you to be part of the dispute, you should ask someone else to adjust it (e.g., by asking the person who started the RFC to shorten it or by posting a note on the RFC talk page). I don't like any of the options I've been asked to vote for. RFCs aren't votes. You can suggest a compromise or an option that others haven't considered, exactly like you would in any other talk page discussion. How long should an RFC last? As long as all of the participants need, and no longer. If you started an RFC, and you believe other editors will not agree to your proposal, then you are permitted to admit defeat and withdraw it at any time. However, editors who believe their side is winning are advised to not even mention the possibility of ending an RFC early during the first week. Is the result of an RFC binding? Not inherently, but an RFC is usually an effective way of determining the consensus of editors, which is binding. The formal closing summary of an RfC is generally considered to be a summary of the current consensus, although consensus can change over time. Aren't all RFCs supposed to get a formal closing summary? No. Most of the time, the result is clear to all of the participants, and editors should not waste the community's time by asking someone else to officially write down what everyone already knows. Only a minority of RFCs get closing summary statements. Can the person who started the RFC, or another involved editor, write a summary of the discussion? Yes. In particular, when a proposal is soundly rejected, proponents are encouraged to accept defeat with grace. However, if the outcome could plausibly be disputed, then involved editors (on all sides of a dispute) are encouraged to let someone else write a summary.

	This project page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Dispute Resolution (inactive) This page is within the scope of WikiProject Dispute Resolution, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Dispute ResolutionWikipedia:WikiProject Dispute ResolutionTemplate:WikiProject Dispute ResolutionDispute Resolution

Archives

For why RfC was created, see: Dispute resolution/Archive 1#Requests for comment Feb 2004 Feb 2004–May 2005 May 2005–Sep 2005 Sep 2005–Oct 2005 Oct 2005–May 2006 May 2006–Dec 2006 Jan 2007–Jun 2007 July 2007–Dec 2007 Jan 2008-Feb 2009 Feb 2009-Feb 2010 Feb 2010-January 2012 January 2012—May 2013 May 2013–August 2015 August 2015–October 2016 October 2016–June 2018 June 2018–June 2020 June 2020–April 2021 April 2021–November 2021 November 2021–May 2023 June 2023– (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:

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

WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:43, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Unnecessary, we have lots of RFCs without any problems, it's just the unsigned ones we complain about. Selfstudier (talk) 16:47, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Wrong, I never complain about unsigned RfCs (undated RfCs I will add a timestamp to), but I often complain about RfCs that are failing in some other way; sometimes I fix these up because I suspect that the filer might not understand my explanation. Examples: Special:Diff/1256748178; Special:Diff/1256578999; Special:Diff/1256555117; Special:Diff/1256426747. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:31, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

That's you, we're complaining here ;) We have complained about it before, now we havin another go. Selfstudier (talk) 18:35, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Maybe we'll have a (signed) RFC about it. Selfstudier (talk) 18:35, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Not sure what you are trying to ask about but I won’t be trying to remember details about more than half a year old incident and not sure what is meant with precipitating incident. Accountability as in knowing who to ask when the statement is not neutral/not representative of the discussion/etc. As for the argument that identity of opener shouldn’t affect discussion, this would be also true for everything, including even edits or discussions, so I can’t see why RfC should be a unique exception. Makeandtoss (talk) 19:17, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Are you claiming that the RFC question is non-neutral? Here's a copy of the entire question:

"Should the following sentence be added to the lede?

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

"

If not, then what kind of "accountability" are you needing in this RFC? Or are you only saying that, hypothetically, if someone did need to have a discussion about an RFC question, then it would be unfortunate if you had to waste 30 seconds looking up the username first? I wonder how long it would take if the OP had taken you up on your advice to have an admin sign it instead. Then you'd start with the wrong user. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:27, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Wouldna took any time at all if they signed it like everybody else does. Selfstudier (talk) 19:34, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

I genuinely have no idea what you are trying to get at. I clearly said if it is not neutral, I did not see that any specific question has been non-neutral. 30 seconds is a long time, it should be clear without having to dig anywhere. Makeandtoss (talk) 19:38, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

So you think there's nothing wrong with the question, and therefore you have no need to contact the editor over it. Why exactly do you immediately need to know the editor's name again? Just personal preference? A desire for an unnecessary level of uniformity? WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:38, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

A natural desire for transparency and accountability if necessary. Makeandtoss (talk) 20:28, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Transparency and accountability are provided by the page history. Desiring these things does not explain why you believe the username need to be immediately visible, without clicking on the page history. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:25, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

The answer is obvious: Make wants to judge the RFC question by who wrote it. This is the exact reason I think RFCs should not be signed: to stop, or at least slow down, people from doing exactly that. Levivich (talk) 18:51, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

As someone keeps pointing out tho, it is kinda easy to see who put it up. Selfstudier (talk) 18:52, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

If you're on the RfC page, you can look at the page history, sure. But many people won't have had the RfC's page on their watchlists, they will arrive by some other means. Perhaps they habitually check WP:RFC/BIO etc. and from those, pick out RfCs that they are interested in. What they see on those pages is the brief and neutral statement, terminating with a timestamp. I don't think that the lack of an optional signature will make these people say "I won't bother with that one because it's unsigned". But maybe they'll think "it's signed by my nemesis, so I'll go over there and oppose it, whatever the arguments in favour might be". --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:10, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

...as the internet has taught us, having to click (or scroll) is enough to dissuade like 90% of people. Levivich (talk) 20:49, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Did you seriously write "30 seconds is a long time"? Levivich (talk) 18:50, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, (no pun intended) and it was not sarcastic; editors should not have to spend any amount of time looking for what in my opinion should be naturally presented.

And no, the aim here is not to judge the RFC question by who wrote it; most RFC questions I have seen are in the form of "should X contain Y?" I can't see how this question can be judged based on the RFC's opener.

All in all, seeing an RFC without the opener's username does not feel natural to me, just as an edit summary without one wouldn't (in this case as well it could be argued that hiding it would protect the content from supposed prejudice). Makeandtoss (talk) 18:50, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

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

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)

RFC on signing RFCs

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)

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)

Is it an RfC if it isn't publicized?

The page today says that all you have to do to create an RfC is start a discussion on a talk page and put "RfC" in the section title. It says publicizing it is optional, for when you want more than the usual watchers of that talk page to comment.

It seems to me that what makes an RfC an RfC is that it contains an {{rfc}} template invocation, and that the essential result of that is that more people than the regular page watchers get invited to comment. Without the {{rfc}} tag, I would just call it a discussion. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 21:13, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Very timely post. Just yesterday I modified a heading per my understanding and past experience. Then I read the information page and was very surprised to see that my edit is not supported by the language there. (My edit was not challenged.) By the more liberal, less restrictive definition, a large majority of ATP discussions are RfCs in my experience; they are requests for comments. That doesn't seem very useful in my view. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:38, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

It looks like @Jc37 has been re-writing the page. While I'm not attached to the old version, the new version clearly still needs some work. If the discussion doesn't appear in WP:Requests for comment/All, it's not an RFC.

@Mandruss, I agree with you: non-RFCs shouldn't claim to be RFCs in the section headings, and RFCs should declare that they're RFCs in the section heading (assuming the RFC is not on a dedicated page). WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:08, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

what makes an RfC an RfC is that it contains an {{rfc}} template invocation Yeah, that's my understanding of what an RfC is too. I've made some changes to the page to reflect that. Some1 (talk) 22:12, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

If all the bots on Misplaced Pages disappeared tomorrow, you could still start a "request for comment". All it is, is requesting the Misplaced Pages community to comment in a discussion. Which can be seen if one goes back and looks at the history of this page. The bot is a convenience, it is not the discussion itself. - jc37 22:36, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

The RfC listings and the feedback request service are how we notify the Misplaced Pages community that their comments are solicited. While not impossible, it would be impractical to do that without the {{rfc}} template and the bots. I don't know about you, but I haven't the time to go around visiting hundreds or thousands of ATPs (and other talk spaces) to find requests for my comments. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:12, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

The bot is indeed a convenience. However, listing the discussion ("actually making a request for comments", if you prefer) on the central listing pages, is required. Those central lists used to be maintained 100% manually. An RFC is only an RFC if they get listed there. Otherwise, it's just a talk page discussion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:13, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Even without Legobot to populate WP:RFC/BIO etc., you can still keep track of current RfCs because any page bearing at least one {{rfc}} banner will also be in Category:Misplaced Pages requests for comment (although the cat won't help to find the second RfC on a page that has two or more). As I write this, the category contains 63 pages, so far from visiting hundreds or thousands of ATPs (and other talk spaces) to find requests for my comments it's a few dozen. This tracking category is not dependent upon any bot. Quite the reverse: Legobot uses the category to determine which pages currently have a {{rfc}} and so may need attention. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:22, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the largely academic technical correction (as you say, we don't technically need Legobot to find RfCs, but we still need the {{rfc}} template). I hope and believe you agree that a discussion without an {{rfc}} template (and other differences, such as concise RfC question) is not an RfC. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:22, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Arguably it could be a valid RfC without the template if, for example, listed on WP:CENT.—S Marshall T/C 17:05, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

It could be a widely advertised discussion if it were listed on CENT or in a watchlist notice, but it wouldn't be an RFC.

See, e.g., "RfC is one of several processes available within Misplaced Pages's dispute resolution system" – RFC is a specific process, not just any old discussion. "A list of all current RfCs can be found at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/All (WP:RFC/A)." – Ergo, if it's not (never) listed there, it's not an RFC. "A request for comment (RfC) is a way to ask the Misplaced Pages community for input on an issue." – an RFC is "a way to ask", which means that other ways of asking are not RFCs. And so forth. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:50, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

And yet there were RFCs for about five years before the template even existed. "Request for comment" surely means any request, made in a public place, meant to attract previously uninvolved editors to help resolve a dispute by commenting.—S Marshall T/C 20:47, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

And yet there were RFCs for about five years before the template even existed. I'll take your word for that; I wasn't around then. So we improved things. I propose that we not turn back the clock. There's lower-case "request for comment", and then there's "RfC" which, quite rightly, has evolved a more specific definition at Misplaced Pages. Let's not conflate the two, ok? ―Mandruss ☎ 21:13, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

"Improved" is a subjective determination...

Anyway, S Marshall is correct.

An RfC differs from a "regular discussion" (whatever that's supposed to mean) in that the "intent" is to attempt to achieve a broader community consensus, rather than merely a local consensus. Thus attempting to avoid a walled garden, or an echo chamber (etc.), by inviting others to join in the discussion. It doesn't matter if the publicizing is done by bot, template, watched category, watched noticeboard, watched talk page, or whatever. As noted in the publicizing section on this page.

We treat various noticeboards that way. For example, at AN/I someone can be considered Community-banned. Banning being something requiring community consensus.

So an RfC isn't about a bot or a template (or whether it has capital letters), but whether the community considers the discussion a "community consensus".

It's implied there in the name: Request for <community> comment. - jc37 21:15, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

All else aside: If you wish to change the long-standing, widely accepted definition of "RfC", you'll need to do it at Village Pump, not here. Or, at least using RfC here (with an {{rfc}} template). The participants here to date can almost be counted on one hand, and that's far from enough. I'm fairly confident a more public proposal would fail, but have at it. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:25, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

What is it that you are claiming that I have changed? - jc37 21:30, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

the long-standing, widely accepted definition of "RfC" is discussions that use the {{rfc}} template. Do you not seek to expand that definition? Your now-reverted changes to the language certainly implied that you do. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:39, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm looking at this - the version of the page before I started editing the page on Jan 9. I don't think that what I am saying here disagrees with what it says there under "What an RfC is".

Direct quote: "An RfC discussion typically takes place on a section or subsection of a talk page or noticeboard, and is an ordinary Misplaced Pages discussion that follows the normal rules and procedures, including possible closing."

"...is an ordinary discussion".

So it seems to me that the misunderstanding here, could be yours.

Anyway, the intent or goal of using the bot is to publicize a discussion to the broader community. On that I don't think anyone here disagrees.

Maybe we should be clearer on the page about why we are using the bot for notification - the want for broader community consensus. - jc37 21:53, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

I wrote that sentence, so let me tell you the intention behind it.

An RFC is an ordinary discussion in that the usual talk page rules apply (e.g., you can't unilaterally ban threaded discussion), and consensus can change. Both of these points have been sources of significant contention in recent years.

However, an RFC is not just an ordinary discussion, and not all ordinary discussions are RFCs. An RFC is not an RFC if it is not publicized to the community through the exact method of listing it on the RFC pages.

The usual and most convenient way to list it is to add the rfc template to the discussion. We are using the bot for the central lists, because when we did everything manually, editors found it difficult, regularly screwed up the formatting, and very frequently forgot to remove the outdated listings. (The bot that notifies individuals of RFCs that might interest them is separate and highly effective, but not essential to the definition of an RFC.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:13, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

“An RFC is an ordinary discussion in that the usual talk page rules apply”? Such as the expectation that all posts are signed? SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:25, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Not everything on a talk page requires a signature (e.g., a ===Drafting=== subsection). WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:21, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Every post on a talk page requires a signature. Unsigned drafting sections are an abomination to the wiki, anonymous flag flying, impractical to decipher who is pushing what and why. The edit history is convoluted content-editing & discussion, making wikiarcheology painful to practically impossible, if a good number of editors were involved. Often, a good number of editors are not involved, which is not a sign of success, but of process failure to attract outside participation. There are many reasons outsiders fail to be attracted, but one of them is definitely the aversion to a question of unknown authorship.

Misplaced Pages began this way in 2000, and the abandonment of that style and development of the talk page was a very early technical necessity. I guess that this happened so early that the lesson was forgotten, because it was repeated with the incubator and drafting being done in project_talkspace, with comments again on the same page, mixed signed and unsigned editing in the history. The artefacts of that mistake are still a problem.

Some very clever leading Wikipedians had a skill in presenting proposals with two column displays of the status quo vs proposed draft, on the talk page, unsigned, uneditable-in-practice except by the undeclared proposal author. Luckily, the clever leading Wikipedian knew what she was talking about, because the draft author in history-obscured methods either get their way or nothing happens. Unsigned drafting on a talkpage is a work style to be opposed.

The applicable meaning here? RfCs are not special. Special templates and bots are not justification for arguing that RfCs have special status. Special templates and bots are slippery paths toward technocracy.

- SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:28, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you're unhappy with the outcome of the recent RFC.

I still don't think that putting "RFC" in a section heading actually makes a discussion use the WP:RFC process. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:45, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

There were RFCs before the template existed, but there weren't RFCs before the separate, central location for posting them existed. See, e.g., the first version of this page, which listed one discussion in each of three categories (article, user, and admin) as an example of this new process. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:43, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

With the pretty obvious goal being to publicize those discussions, by attempting to make it easier for others to find the discussions in question. This process has merely been about publicizing discussions to get broader community input. - jc37 21:57, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

With the pretty obvious goal of having a single central location for finding out about those discussions, rather than having editors spam notices hither and yon and nobody being able to find them all, because I posted mine at RSN, and you posted yours at VPP, and Alice posted hers at a WikiProject, and Bob posted his on the wikipedia-l mailing list, and Chris posted theirs on Jimmy's talk page.

Unlike the scattershot process used before it, the RFC process offers one-stop shopping. All the RFCs are listed in the same place, and non-RFCs are not listed there. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:19, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

And yet, even this page suggests that one could post notices "hither and yon" to publicize a discussion. Also known as Misplaced Pages:Canvassing#Appropriate_notification.

And everything you note is merely that this page was used as a central place to notify editors of discussions. It was/is one of many ways.

Anyway, the point of this page was - and still is - about publicizing discussions. To make it easier for people to know about/find discussions.

Incidentally, nowhere have I said that the bot-assited notification method use is "bad" or a "bad thing". I have left such value assessments out of this. (I personally also find them somewhat convenient).

But we shouldn't be teling editors that using the bot is the only way that they can notify others about a discussion.

If I were to place "request for comment" in a header, and not add the rfc template, but added a link to the discussion at the other typical places, would it be any less of a community consensus? Of course not.

Use of the bot does not control the usage of the phrase "Request for comment", or the abbreviation "RfC". And if someone would like to suggest it does, perhaps we shold travel over for another look at WP:OWN... - jc37 07:18, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

We are not telling editors that using the bot (which one, by the way? The bot that adds the RFC question to the central lists, or the FRS bot that invites individual editors to participate?) is "the only way that they can notify others about a discussion".

We are telling them that it is possible to notify others about a discussion, and indeedd to form a community consensus without using the WP:RFC process.

And if you're not using the RFC process, you shouldn't call it an RFC (on wiki). WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:05, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

That last sentence - why not? What makes the phrase "request for comment" exclusive to only bot use? I can request comments on Misplaced Pages any time, and most any place on Misplaced Pages. And really, I would think we'd agree, we should be encouraging it of edits, as positive collaboration towards consensus would seem to be a good thing. - jc37 07:01, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

What makes the phrase "proposed deletion" exclusive only to the prod tag? I can propose the deletion of an article on Misplaced Pages any time, and most any place on Misplaced Pages. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:53, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

And in WP:DELPRO, it notes that in certain cases an AFD nom can be treated as a PROD. They're all part of the same process.

So why would an RFC be separate from the typical WP:CON talk page processes? - jc37 23:28, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Nothing in DELPRO, or any other page, says that using the words "proposed deletion" somewhere on a talk page makes a comment an actual WP:PROD. DELPRO only says that certain low-participation AFDs should be closed using the WP:PROD process instead of the WP:AFD process.

An RFC is different from the typical talk-page discussion because an RFC is a specific process of advertising the discussion. (All community discussions are supposed to be consensus-oriented. You should have WP:CON RFCs and WP:CON talk-page discussions and even WP:CON RFAs and WP:CON ANI reports.)

For example: This discussion is not an RFC. We still want to achieve consensus, and we still want as much of the community to be involved as feels like joining us, but this discussion is not an RFC.

We could drop a note at WP:VPM about this, and this discussion would still not be an RFC. We could add a link to WP:CENT, and this discussion would still not be an RFC.

The only way to make this discussion become an RFC is to use the actual RFC process. That means dropping an {{rfc}} tag in the section and letting the bot add it to the central lists.

Think of this as the difference between someone saying "Do you want a coke?" vs "Do you want some Coca-Cola®?" In both cases, you're being offered something to drink, but only one of them is the real thing. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

That's what I was trying to convey with lower-case "request for comment". Depending on where you live, it's Coke (capitalized per dictionary), soft drink, soda, pop, soda pop, or even sodie pop, and maybe more outside the U.S. (not the first unuseful thing said in this thread.) ―Mandruss ☎ 02:07, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

To reduce barriers to newcomers, and others unencultured, one should not write

“For example: This discussion is not an RFC”,

but should write instead

“For example: This discussion is not a WP:RFC”.

RFC does include a prominent pointer to WP:RFC, but that is due to the bad practice of Misplaced Pages-jargon being common. It would be better if Wikipedians didn’t have to learn jargon. SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:57, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Pillar, policy, guideline, essay, article, talk, edit, title, section, heading, revision, revert, undo, remove, delete, redirect, image, collapse, move, noticeboard, template, citation, source, shortcut. These are some common everyday terms that have WP-specific definitions. I'm sorry, but editors just need to learn the WP-specific definitions as part of the massive learning curve; there is no practical alternative. I'm not going to say "I WP:REVERTED your WP:SECTION WP:HEADING WP:EDIT per WP:GUIDELINES", and there's no reason RfCs should be treated any differently. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:51, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Speaking of which, the RFC process is about to reach its 20th anniversary. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:44, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

You don’t distinguish between Misplaced Pages using existing words with their existing meanings from Misplaced Pages neologisms or new abbreviations?

If WP:RFC is different to Request for Comments, in important ways, then not using “WP:” in WP:RFC can be astonishing to a newcomer, can be a barrier to engaging. SmokeyJoe (talk) 19:32, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

I doubt that most ordinary newcomers (e.g., those who didn't study comp sci at university) have any idea what "RFC" means, and those in the tech industry will know that the concept of an RFC has been generalized to handle questions beyond the standards settings bodies for operating the internet (e.g., RFCs for specific software like Rust (programming language)). In short, if you know what a real-world RFC is, you will not be astonished by the English Misplaced Pages's WP:RFC process, and if you don't know what a real-world RFC is, then you will be just as confused and non-astonished as you would by any other WP:TLA that we throw around. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:15, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

I don’t think WP:RFC is astonishing, but I do know that new editors are easily bewildered. Misplaced Pages is pretty good at keeping newcomer barriers low, but let’s keep reminding ourselves. Newcomers often don’t understand talk pages. Of those that do, they can discover talk of an RFC on an article talkpage concerning something they’ve seen on the article. For them, “WP:RFC” provides clear cognitive hints that there is a process, and it’s not a random post asking about a random request for a comment. SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:41, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

I think it's generally a good practice to provide links. With the Reply tool in visual mode, it's even easy to type WP:RFC in the link box and instead choose the spelled-out Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment from the list that pops up.

In the past, I have explained to people that if they see any sort of UPPERCASE in a comment at this wiki, they should add WP: to the front and paste it in the search box to find out what it means. But since most new editors don't have someone like me to answer their questions, it's best to provide a link. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:47, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

I agree. SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:50, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

You don’t distinguish between Misplaced Pages using existing words with their existing meanings from Misplaced Pages neologisms or new abbreviations? Ok, some words like "policy" don't belong in the list. I went a little too far in making the point, but I think the point is still valid. Still, one needs to learn the differences between "revert" and "undo", "title" and "heading", and "remove" and "delete". They need to learn that the counter-intuitive "move" actually corresponds to "rename" in the real world. They are forced to learn that "lead", "lede", and "intro" are actually unnecessary synonyms. And so on. So it's hardly too much to ask them to learn that, at Misplaced Pages, "RFC" and "RfC" refer to a specific Misplaced Pages process. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:10, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

The first use of “RFC” on an article talk page should be written WP:RFC or similar. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:43, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

If Template:Rfc is at the top of the discussion, then it begins "An editor has requested comments from other editors..." WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:51, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is pretty good at keeping newcomer barriers low Ha! I can't believe I read that. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:49, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

I think it’s fair, in the context of thinking about public bureaucracies, eg registering a birth, getting a drivers licence, doing a tax return, extending your house.

I complain about WP:RfCs being too complicated, to understand and respond to, but that’s in pursuit of improvement, not because it’s terrible. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:04, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

I enthusiastically support a five-year project to simplify and streamline PAGs—that's where most of the learning curve is. Regrettably, no one else does. Sigh. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:14, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

I’d be interested. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:45, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

I complain about WP:RfCs being too complicated, to understand and respond to - the creators of some RfCs are perhaps not helping by making their opening statements more complex than they need be, or by providing too many options, and even sub-options. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:33, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

And survey sections and discussion sections and circles and arrows and paragraphs typed on the back... WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:49, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

User:jc37, I need some clarification on your position and terminology, so I at least know what the questions are here. Do you believe the page WP:RFC is just advice to Wikipedians on how to request comments on things? Do you believe there is a formal process on Misplaced Pages called Request For Comments, and if so, that the page WP:RFC defines and describes it and tells people how to participate in it? Also, have people traditionally referred to discussions on Misplaced Pages that don't involve the {{rfc}} template as an "RfC"? Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 01:31, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

I think the traditional meaning of Request For Comment (RfC) is a discussion tagged with a {{rfc}} template call, and I believe that should continue. To me, whatever listing and notification the template causes to happen is only secondary; the most important thing is that the creator has declared he wants to participate in the RfC process -- the one described on this information page. Whether and how the discussion gets publicized is a question for designers of the RfC process, not the editor requesting comments. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 23:59, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Yep. Regardless of what was the case in the past, the RfC format is viewed as "higher level" than more casual discussions because of the various mechanisms we have to publicize them and recruit participation. If the bot went down and the templates stopped working, etc., I don't expect "RfC" would continue to mean everything it does today. — Rhododendrites \\ 12:10, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

The WP:FRS bot went down for a while, and participation dropped immediately. I hadn't realized until then just how dependent we had become on that system. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:01, 15 January 2025 (UTC)