Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for comment: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 20:04, 11 November 2024 editSelfstudier (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers41,173 edits →RFC signer ← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 11:26, 12 January 2025 edit undoRedrose64 (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators273,202 edits →Is it an RfC if it isn't publicized?: expand reply to Mandruss
(80 intermediate revisions by 21 users not shown)
Line 39:		Line 39:
	\|archive = Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for comment/Archive %(counter)d		\|archive = Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for comment/Archive %(counter)d
	}}		}}

	== RFC statistics ==

	If you've ever been curious about past RFCs, see ]. I think that most of the links won't work, but they should all be findable in the archives via the timestamp. The data is not clean (for example, several of the old RFCs attributed to me were just me making repairs to broken RFC questions), but a few general findings might be fun:

	* '''It's a lot of RFCs, but it's less than it used to be''': Almost 17,000 RFCs are listed in this data set, going back to 2007. If you want to see the oldest ones, they were on the main page until about August 2005.
	** This list shows 752 RFCs in 2023, 913 in 2022, and 995 in 2021. This is down significantly compared to previous years: 1,249 in 2020 , 1,311 in 2015, and 1,215 in 2010.
	** We are currently on track for a record low (around 700) for this year.
	** In the 2010s, we ran about three new RFCs per day. This year, we will average about two new RFCs per day.
	** The drop in RFCs is interesting in part because I've seen comments saying that more RFCs are greeted with complaints about being unnecessary, because there are too many RFCs.
	* '''Most people are first-timers''': About 9% of RFCs were unsigned. Almost 6,000 logged-in editors started more than 15,000 (~90%) signed RFCs. Something around 250 RFCs (1.5%) were started by IPs.
	** Most people have very little experience with starting RFCs. 60% of editors in this list created one RFC. Another 15% have started only two RFCs. 90% of editors in this list have started four or fewer RFCs; they account for half of all signed RFCs.
	** Many RFCs were started by someone who was probably trying to read and follow the directions on this page for the first or second time.
	** However, some people start a lot more RFCs than normal: ] has started about 200 RFCs, though only a few since 2017. ] and ] have each started more than 100 RFCs. The counts fall off rapidly from there. Only a dozen editors have started 50+ RFCs <small>(pinging ], ], ], ], ], ]; note that some high-volume RFC starters are no longer editing at all, and others have been encouraged to find a different way of contributing to Misplaced Pages)</small>, and another 30 editors have created between 25 and 49 RFCs. The numbers really add up: Just 25 editors account for about 10% of the signed RFCs. Just 1% of the people starting RFCs have created 15% of RFCs; each of them has created at least 20 RFCs. If you've heard the saying that 20% of people do 80% of the work, we're not quite that skewed overall; here, 20% of people start 60% of RFCs.
	] (]) 04:50, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

	*Thank you. I will certainly look at these statistics. I have been a professional user of statistics, and I usually like to look at statistical reports. I have started a lot of RFCs because most of them have been the quasi-resolution of content disputes that I was mediating. ] (]) 17:24, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
	*:I think that's typical for some of the higher-volume RFC starters. As I said in the first paragraph, not every RFC attributed to me in this dataset is actually "from" me. I've also been asked to be the person who starts RFCs, since I'm extremely familiar with the process. ] (]) 19:42, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

	:Most of the RfCs I've started have been in the course of acting as a guideline shepherd, to resolve questions about the wording or interpretation of a guideline (or occasionally policy), most often an MoS page. I don't often start RfCs that pertain to something mainspace-localized (e.g. the wording of an article's lead, or which photo should be used in a bio article). I do respond (via ]) to many such RfCs, though. They seem to serve a useful function when done properly, but the noob factor is palapable, as very often ] is ignored, or the RfC is nowhere near neutrally worded and is trying to force a point that some inexperienced editor isn't "]" on in a prior and short-circuited discussion. I'm not really sure what could be done to curtail that. Perhaps RfCs should require someone to second them before they are listed as RfCs by the bots that do that work. (The concern is that RfCs draw in editors from all over the project, and are thus expensive of editorial time and attention more broadly that just resolving matters more locally on the pertinent talk page with a regular discussion among the editors most interested. But they couldn't be done away with entirely, because they are a site-wide safety value, a check-and-balance against ] / ] problems.) <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 09:55, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
	::I've heard that RFCs used to require a 'second', but I'm not sure that's true and I haven't looked. Generally, I find that when the question is obviously biased, the community manages to handle it perfectly well anyway. Perhaps, when the need is to tell the POV pusher that the answer is really, truly, absolutely, unquestionably '''''no!''''', then there's an argument to be made about the biased question being more effective. If you get to ask: "Shall we do it my way, which will result in rainbows, butterflies, peace, and love, or shall we do it the bad, wrong, horrible way that causes poverty, war, and oppression?" and people reject your proposal anyway, then maybe you'll finally get the message. ] (]) 19:53, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
	:I haven't begun many RFCs this year, as the content disputes I was involved with in my area of interests over nearly 19 years, have been settled. ] (]) 15:07, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
	:I was surprised to see that I am one of the top editors for starting RfCs.
	:I always try to phrase RfCs simply and unbiased. Perhaps it would be helpful to review RfCs so ensure they are properly worded.
	:RfCs are useful for articles that a small number of editors dominate since it brings in a wider range for a second look. But they are not very useful if the issues are complex, because most respondents,in my opinion, are not willing to spend much time. ] (]) 15:51, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
	::A little while ago, an editor (], might that have been you?) said that getting a larger quantity of editors responding to a question has to be balanced with getting comments from people who actually know what they're talking about. RFCs that require either specific prior knowledge or spending more than a few minutes reading will not appeal to most potential respondents. We have plenty of editors who are qualified to opine about whether A or B is a preferable opinion (e.g., this image at the top of the page or not?). We do not have plenty of editors who are qualified to answer questions that require specialized knowledge. If we can get an RFC dominated by the small number of people who know what they're talking about, then that might be a good thing. ] (]) 22:06, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
	:::<small>If it sounds right to you, then it probably was me. If it sounds wrong to anyone, then it probably wasn't. That's my stance and I'm sticking to it. -- ] (]) 23:05, 30 September 2024 (UTC)</small>
	::::<small>It seems like the sort of sensible thing you might say.</small> ] (]) 01:10, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
	:::I think we need to be extremely careful about how far we take that argument in terms of formulating best practice: down that road lay walled gardens and many of the exact issues that RfC is meant to combat. First off, respondents already have a significant degree of control over aligning the RfCs that they land at with their own interests and capabilities--either by self-selecting from the listings or registering in the appropriate FRS categories.{{pb}} Second, and more germane, often it is precisely the editors without too much stake or pre-existing attachment to an exact issue or sub-field that you want to recruit with RfC. Because the issues resolved by RfC turn much less often on respondents having some hyper-specific understanding of arcane, subject-matter specific knowledge, and much more often on applying policy and previous community consensus on a particular editorial issue. It is extremely, extremely rare that more voices does not improve the dialogue and the synergy of the consensus outcome with broader community best practice. That's the main value of RfC; injecting more voices--and specifically voices less likely to be entrenched by prior dispute, idiosyncratic rules created by small numbers of editors that may not conform to policy or represent best practice, or even their own "expertise". {{pb}} And let's remember that Misplaced Pages is about as susceptible to the Dunning-Kruger effect as any work space humanity has ever produced, due to it's open and anonymous nature; often these levels of expertise are self-assessed and the people most convinced of their unassailably superior grasp of the subject matter are exactly the people whose perspectives need to be diluted by a larger pool of perspective, to ease a problematic grip on the article, family of articles, or process in question. When editors arrive and cannot parse the issues because they are so technically complex, that is of course another issue, albeit relatively rare in my experience--again, most issues turn on a reading of policy vis-a-vis summarizing the conclusions of sources, not a comprehensive understanding of the field in question.{{pb}} And in cases where a reasonable determination does hinge on highly field-specific knowledge, there's very little lost by an editor being pinged to a discussion, only for them to determine within a few minutes that it is outside their ability to properly come to grips with, and therefore decline to respond, or else give a bit of very guarded, limited input. As to the concern that "RFCs that require either specific prior knowledge or spending more than a few minutes reading will not appeal to most potential respondents.": a) I'm not at all convinced that is true, and b) if someone is not willing to spend more than a few minutes reading in order to catch up on the context and nuances of '''''<u>any</u>''''' RfC, they are not the ones you want responding in any event. '']]'' 13:58, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
	::::I think it depends on the subject. Editors don't need to spend time reading sources to vote in a "Which image is better?" RFC, and those tend to attract a higher than average number of participants. Editors tend to self-select out of questions that require specific background knowledge or significant extra work, and those tend to attract a lower number of participants. ] (]) 16:51, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

	== Electronic Intifada should be deprecated ==
	{{Discussion top\|result=Moved to ].}}
	In this article titled "". They imply that the Germany ambassador lied about mass rapes. In reality, he only apologized for believing a story which was not corroborated correctly. it is a single story and no where he mentions "mass rapes". EI is lying openly. This should be enough for them to be deprecated given that they are used as a reliable source for A-I conflict. EI is extremely hyper partisan that it should not continue being used as a reliable source. ] (]) 19:54, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

	:This seems a borderline ] violation, but there have been RFCs about EI in recent months. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>]</span> 19:57, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
	::{{replyto\|LuffyDe\|Remsense}} This is off-topic for this page, which is for discussing improvements to the page ]. In fact, the question appears to be something that should go to ]. --] 🌹 (]) 21:27, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
	:::Sure, I would move it there. ] (]) 22:34, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
	{{Discussion bottom}}

	== Support and suggestions for improving a draft RFC around whether advocacy groups can be used for ] or if they count as ] ==

	]

	This is part of a few discussions around whether literature from advocacy groups can count as ], especially in the context of ].

	Current discussions total is about 1.4 ] long, and I haven't had a good chance to really parse everything in the discussions out.

	I'm looking to:
	1) Make this RFC more succinct/formatted correctly.
	2) Figure out if the proposed language should belong in the RFC to update a longstanding essay, ], or just drop it.
	3) Trying to see how vague/abstract the question should be.

	I suspect there is no RFC that would answer the discussions entirely and that debates will last longer, but I am looking for the question that provides the most information about what current community consensus is, and provides a useful framework to debate around. ] (]) 04:34, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

	==RfC metadiscussion==
	I reverted the recent addition of a sentence saying that debates about an RfC are not allowed in the RfC discussion, because it sounds like this is forbidding discussion of such things as whether the RfC is a waste of people's time because it's not timely or the question is too vague to yield useful comments or the question is biased. These are all important discussions, and we don't state any better place to have it. It's true that such discussion does not answer the request for comment, as it is not about the topic of the request, but the talk page section where those comments go seems like an appropriate place for it.

	I think we should, if we don't already, advise people to try to have those discussions before creating the RfC.

	If there is some ''other'' kind of debate that we want to discourage in the RfC discussion, we need to be more specific. ] (]) 18:19, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

	:This relates to an RFC on RSN, see ]. There is no need for the policy change, it wouldn't be helpful to block such discussion and prior discussion is what was missing in this case. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 20:58, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
	::AFAIK the only kinds of debate that we want to discourage in RFC are behavioral problems. So long as people are following ordinary rules about participation, then whether their responses are what the OP wants to hear vs saying that it is a bad question is not really something we need to constrain.
	::I can imagine certain people (e.g., limited English skills, limited social/communication skills) would prefer a straight-up vote with no explanation, but that's not what RFC does. ] (]) 23:10, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
	:::I think you missed the point of the rule being proposed -- it isn't about what kinds of things are OK in any RfC discussion; it's about off-topic discussion. While there is nothing wrong with discussing flavors of ice cream in an RfC discussion, we don't want to see them in a discussion where the question is, "Is The People's Daily a reliable source"? By the same token, metadiscussion (discussion about the discussion) is off-topic; it is not under the topic on which comments were requested. Explaining a vote is not metadiscussion (but arguing about whether people should vote is). While I think metadiscussion is appropriate for RfCs in spite of it not being the comments that were requested, I do see why someone would think that discussion should go somewhere else. ] (]) 18:20, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
	::::I don't think that meta-discussion about the RFC is off topic. Meta-discussion could include:
	::::* Should this RFC be happening (now, or at all)?
	::::* Is this question clear, concise, neutral, understandable?
	::::* Are there any prior RFCs or other discussions that should be noted?
	::::* Comments about vote counts and themes in the replies.
	::::* Discussions about when and how to extend, end, or modify an RFC.
	::::I can understand someone wanting those comments to not happen/be visible to future participants (especially if that person disagrees), but they are IMO permissible and sometimes very valuable. Bryan, I'm glad you reverted that inappropriate claim. ] (]) 16:20, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
	:::::+1 agree to the revert. Folks can always debate appropriateness of an RFC. ] (]) 16:25, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

	== RFC signer ==		== RFC signer ==
Line 123:		Line 49:
	:: 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)		:: 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)		:::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)		::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)		:::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)
Line 152:		Line 80:
	::::Wouldna took any time at all if they signed it like everybody else does. ] (]) 19:34, 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)		::::I genuinely have no idea what you are trying to get at. I clearly said if it is not neutral, I did not see that any specific question has been non-neutral. 30 seconds is a long time, it should be clear without having to dig anywhere. ] (]) 19:38, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
			:::::So you think there's nothing wrong with the question, and therefore you have no need to contact the editor over it. Why exactly do you immediately need to know the editor's name again? Just personal preference? A desire for an unnecessary level of uniformity? ] (]) 15:38, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
			::::::A natural desire for transparency and accountability if necessary. ] (]) 20:28, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::Transparency and accountability are provided by the page history. Desiring these things does not explain why you believe the username need to be immediately visible, without clicking on the page history. ] (]) 17:25, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::The answer is obvious: Make wants to judge the RFC question by who wrote it. This is the exact reason I think RFCs should ''not'' be signed: to stop, or at least slow down, people from doing exactly that. ] (]) 18:51, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::::As someone keeps pointing out tho, it is kinda easy to see who put it up. ] (]) 18:52, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::::If you're on the RfC page, you can look at the page history, sure. But many people won't have had the RfC's page on their watchlists, they will arrive by some other means. Perhaps they habitually check ] etc. and from those, pick out RfCs that they are interested in. What they see on those pages is the ], terminating with a timestamp. I don't think that the lack of an optional signature will make these people say "I won't bother with that one because it's unsigned". But maybe they'll think "it's signed by my nemesis, so I'll go over there and oppose it, whatever the arguments in favour might be". --] 🌹 (]) 20:10, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::::...as the internet has taught us, having to click (or scroll) is enough to dissuade like 90% of people. ] (]) 20:49, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
			:::::Did you seriously write "30 seconds is a long time"? {{lol}} ] (]) 18:50, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
			::::::Yes, (no pun intended) and it was not sarcastic; editors should not have to spend any amount of time looking for what in my opinion should be naturally presented.
			::::::And no, the aim here is not to judge the RFC question by who wrote it; most RFC questions I have seen are in the form of "should X contain Y?" I can't see how this question can be judged based on the RFC's opener.
			::::::All in all, seeing an RFC without the opener's username does not feel natural to me, just as an edit summary without one wouldn't (in this case as well it could be argued that hiding it would protect the content from supposed prejudice). ] (]) 18:50, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

	Selfstudier, I think these are the reasons for both sides. Have I missed any that seem important to you?		Selfstudier, I think these are the reasons for both sides. Have I missed any that seem important to you?
Line 177:		Line 116:
	::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've ] you an example of the bias caused by seeing the signature, and you ] that you encounter the same problem. What more do you want? Names and dates, like "Here's a link to an RFC where I chose not to participate because the OP has such a bad reputation, and as proof of the bad reputation, here's the ANI discussion where they earned a TBAN"? If so, sorry: I'm not really interested in engaging in gossip about individuals. ] (]) 19:30, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
	:::Then I am not interested in your theorizing, fair's fair. ] (]) 19:35, 11 November 2024 (UTC)		:::Then I am not interested in your theorizing, fair's fair. ] (]) 19:35, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
			::::You've ] that {{xt\|Every RFC...in my area}} has you reacting to the reputation of the signing editor and your own past experiences with the signing editor. I wouldn't call your personal lived experiences to be "my theorizing". ] (]) 17:29, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
			:::::I would, tho. ] (]) 17:33, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
	:The argument about Arabic or Hebrew usernames is still unconvincing. Does this mean we should hide editors’ names when they edit so that people don’t perceive it in a biased way? Does this mean we should hide usernames in discussions so that editors don’t also perceive their opinions in a biased way? Why do we give an RFC special treatment? ] (]) 19:41, 11 November 2024 (UTC)		:The argument about Arabic or Hebrew usernames is still unconvincing. Does this mean we should hide editors’ names when they edit so that people don’t perceive it in a biased way? Does this mean we should hide usernames in discussions so that editors don’t also perceive their opinions in a biased way? Why do we give an RFC special treatment? ] (]) 19:41, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
			::Yes, we do allow editors to hide their usernames when they edit so that people don’t perceive it in a biased way. See ]. ] (]) 15:36, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
			:::Legitimate uses requires not crossing the streams. If an editor has a bias on something, and an edit history with that bias, and they use an alt account to hide from that known bias, that is not a legitimate alt account, but is pretending to be someone they are not. A SOCK violation. ] (]) 06:12, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
			:“Have to waste seconds” is offensive. It takes much more than seconds, and worse, it derails your thinking. ] (]) 06:05, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
			:“Some RFCs are written by more than one person …”. A multi-signed document has to be signed by each signatory, normal and standard. Suggesting that one sign for the others is a weird distraction. On important matters, three admins may be called up to close a discussion, and they do this by each signing the closing statement. At RfA, the multiple nominators each sign separately. ] (]) 06:08, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
			:“Unsigned RFCs promote fairness”. No, not really, they hide the bias. The answer to concerns of unfairness, or unfair bias, is transparency. Declare the bias. Name the authors, and any other contributors, and declare any bias. ] (]) 06:10, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

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

			:I think that both parts of this suggestion (i.e., telling people that it's usual to sign the username and adding an additional rule to post an explicit justification for not making the popular choice) are ]. ] (]) 15:40, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
			::It's just an info page. ] (]) 15:44, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
			:::So? We don't need instruction creep on info pages, either. ] (]) 17:24, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
			::::Info is not instruction. ] (]) 17:29, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
			:::::Telling editors that they should {{xt\|give the name version unless there is some good reason not to, which reason should be given somewhere}} is instruction, not info. ] (]) 17:30, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
			::::::It's info, y'know, cos it's an info page. ] (]) 17:33, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::I think you are reading too much into the label at the top of the page. ] (]) 17:49, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::No, just getting ready for the RFC is all. ] (]) 18:01, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
			I’ve opened several RfCs that were signed with just a timestamp, and no one’s made a fuss about it. Since both the ] and this one were triggered by BilledMammal not signing his RfCs with his username, if he is creating non-neutral or problematic RfCs to the point where he should be required to sign with his username for purposes of accountability or transparency, then there’s a more significant issue at play here than simply whether or not the RfC is signed with a username. ] (]) 23:49, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

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

			There's an ongoing discussion here: ] ] (]) 11:38, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

			== 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}}

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

			] (]) 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.] (]) 18:19, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
			* '''No''', for ]. The reasons to not require an RFC question to end with one person's username are much stronger than the other reasons. The username is not required for any purpose (the bot looks for the date, but not a username). {{pb}}For background, there are now about 10 RFCs are signed with a username for every 1 RFC without it. Someone complains about an RFC that lists the username only in the page history, but not at ] every year or two. As far as I can remember, every single complaint, including the most recent, involved some sort of political hot button. The most recent complaint is about an RFC related to the ], and I frankly couldn't fault other editors if they cynically wondered whether the real desire is to know whether the person who started that RFC is Jewish. (The complainant has already said that the RFC question complies with ].) We have a number of trans editors whose usernames indicate that they are out and proud, or their ]s use the colors or emojis that are associated with the ]. If one of them felt it was necessary to start an RFC, then I see no reason for us to require them to put their username, and therefore to disclose their trans identity, at the end of the question. The questions are supposed to be impersonal and neutral enough that the identity of the person starting the question is unimportant. Also, note that RFCs are sometimes posted on behalf of a group (or an individual who isn't sure how to start an RFC), so adding a username would be misleading. ] (]) 18:34, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
			*: You should strike your "I frankly couldn't fault..." sentence as it is really offensive. You have been here long enough to know that casting aspersions like that is not allowed. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 08:28, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
			* '''No''', for the reasons in "WAID's No Box" in the previous subsection. I don't sign my RFC questions -- I just timestamp them, then add a "(as RFC initiator)" or "(as proposer)" to my !vote. It's much fairer that way. I ''know'' that seeing my name at the end of an RFC question will influence the response. There are also other situations, as detailed in the "No Box" above, e.g. when the person who posts the RFC isn't really the "author" of the RFC, or when there are multiple RFC initiators. All in all, I really don't see the benefit in requiring signatures after the RFC question -- I really think it's better to ''forbid'' it, in fact. RFCs should be decided on their merits; who initiated it is irrelevant. ] (]) 18:44, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
			*:I can go along with forbidding altogether as well. ] (]) 18:49, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
			*:I don't understand how an unsigned RfC followed by a !vote "as proposer" could influence others less than a signed RfC. The !vote is where you express your opinion and by implication how you wish other people will vote; people who hate you are now much better informed on how to vote against you. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 12:46, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
			*::The vote doesn't show on FRS or at WP:RFC. Clicking/scrolling is a real discouragement on the internet. ] (]) 13:45, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
			*:::: I would support changing the mechanism so that signatures don't appear at all in FRS or WP:RFC. Whether they are signed or not. Then people who use those services to watch for interesting RfCs will decide only according to the topic whether to visit the actual RfC. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 03:31, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
			*:::::Unless there's a different FRS page I don't know about, the ] talk page notifications don't show the RfC questions at all (example: ). ] (]) 13:13, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
			*::::::You are correct. The RFC questions are shown only on the central pages (e.g., ]) and at the discussion themselves. The FRS messages provide only a link. ] (]) 14:29, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
			*:::Also, some editors start RFCs and do not immediately post their own views (or at all). ] (]) 19:59, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
			*:To me I would support this option as a reasonable middle ground solution, tackling a bit both concerns of the supposed potential of prejudice against the opener, and of lack of transparency. ] (]) 18:55, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
			*:Who initiated it is never irrelevant, and is often important to discover some nefarious intent hidden behind a bland looking proposal. ] (]) 06:17, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
			* '''No''', RFCs should be as little about individual editors as possible. Unsigned RFCs won’t stop the most battlegroundy from checking history, but I think it would curb less conscious predispositions. <span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧁</span>]<span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧂</span> 08:42, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
			*'''No''', signing an RfC makes it personal and a requester of comments should be able to present it as not a personal request. ] (]) 22:42, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
			*'''No''' as per WAID and in particular because of the tribalism that is prevalent around many of the most contentious arguments that prompt RFCs. If it really matters, and someone truly wishes to go spelunking through the edit history, so be it, but for the average wikipedian, not having a signature should be fine; they don't need to know the person who proposed an RFC to try to decide on the matter at hand. ] (]) 03:36, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
			*'''Yes''' it shouldn't be hidden, just as much as an edit summary shouldn't have the username hidden. But as for a middle ground solution, I am ready to support Levivich's suggestion, which tackles a bit both concerns, that of supposed potential for prejudice, as well as the potential for lack of transparency. ] (]) 18:58, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
			*'''No''', not necessary, and wouldn't improve Misplaced Pages. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 05:00, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
			*'''Yes''', because none of the reasons for not using one's username outweigh the value of doing so (transparency being chief among them). Levivich's compromise is also a good one. ] (]) 19:51, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
			*'''No''' largely per the arguments above (with no preference for/against a full ban on signatures). If an RfC is bad enough to require sanctions, it takes less than a minute to look up the creator, and if it doesn’t, the creator likely doesn’t matter. ] (]) 12:11, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
			* '''Yes'''. All talk page posts should be signed. Anonymous RfC introductions are weird and stupid. They make it hard to work out what is going on. They make it look like not a talk page, which is disconcerting. Multi-section anonymous RfC starts are bamboozling, a barrier to participating. —] (]) 06:03, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

			===Discussion===
			], the bot just pulled the tag. It's been 20 days since the last comment. Do you want to write the closing summary yourself, or do you want to list this at ]? (See the FAQ at the top of this page and #4 in ] if you weren't aware that you have that option.) ] (]) 01:23, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

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

			== ArbCom limits on RFC comments ==

			Just FYI:

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

			I 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)

			== 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? ] (]) 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 ] (]) 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.
			::@], there is no set rule against immediately contesting a decision (assuming a consensus formed). However, if you run the same question less than six months later, you can expect someone to complain. ] (]) 02:10, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::That's understandable. ] (]) 02:41, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

			==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 {{tl\|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 {{tl\|rfc}} tag, I would just call it a discussion. ] (]) 21:13, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
			:Very timely post. Just yesterday I 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. ―] ] 21:38, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
			::It looks like @] . While I'm not attached to the old version, the new version clearly still needs some work. If the discussion doesn't appear in ], it's not an RFC.
			::@], 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). ] (]) 22:08, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
			:{{tq\|what makes an RfC an RfC is that it contains an {{tl\|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. ] (]) 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. - <b>]</b> 22:36, 11 January 2025 (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>20:04, 11 November 2024 (UTC)/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)
			:The RfC listings and the feedback request service are how we notify {{tq\|the Misplaced Pages community}} that their comments are solicited. While not impossible, it would be impractical to do that without the {{tlx\|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. ―] ] 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. ] (]) 23:13, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Even without Legobot to populate ] etc., you can still keep track of current RfCs because any page bearing at least one {{tlx\|rfc}} banner will also be in {{cl\|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 {{tq\|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 {{tlx\|rfc}} and so may need attention. --] 🌹 (]) 11:22, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 11:26, 12 January 2025

This is the talk page for discussing Requests for comment and anything related to its purposes and tasks.

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

Shortcut

WT:RFC

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

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

view · edit Frequently asked questions

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

This project page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Dispute Resolution (inactive)

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Dispute Resolution, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Dispute ResolutionWikipedia:WikiProject Dispute ResolutionTemplate:WikiProject Dispute ResolutionDispute Resolution

Archives

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

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

RFC signer

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

There was a discussion on this a couple of months ago. The opinion seemed to be that it is acceptable, even sometimes beneficial for them not to be signed, as it let’s editors come to an opinion on the question without being prejudiced by their opinion of the opener.

It’s not all that rare; about 9% are unsigned. BilledMammal (talk) 10:35, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

9% is rare. They can avoid prejudice by having the statement filed by an admin for example, not necessarily by having an empty signature. I think after all these discussions an RFC on the way to open an RFC is needed. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:50, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Given page history is publicly accessible, I don’t understand the line "obscures accountability" - if you want to know, can’t you just check the history? BilledMammal (talk) 10:52, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

If the RfC question is posed in a perfectly neutral way, it shouldn't be possible to determine the opinion of the opener from the question. The problem comes when a non-neutral question is unsigned, not when a neutral question is unsigned. Requiring a signature will encourage the opener to be more careful in drafting the question. I could imagine an exception for committee-drafted RfCs like we have on VPP sometimes, but otherwise I think that everything that appears on any type of discussion page should indicate who put it there. An RfC on this would be interesting, but I think VPP would be the right place and it would need a discussion first. Zero 11:11, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

This assumption is false. Some editors are well-known for holding certain viewpoints (e.g., pro-infobox, anti-pseudoscience), and as a result, merely adding our names makes it possible to determine the opinion of the opener. The username can also act like waving the proverbial red flag in front of a bull: "Oh, him. I'd better go vote against whatever that is" or "My friend started an RFC. I should go help her win". WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:36, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: I know this argument and I don't believe it. There is no evidence that any appreciable number of votes occur other than on account of the opinion/POV of the voter. The argument also ignores existing votes. In most cases the originator votes, so if someone was to choose whether/how to vote on account of their opinion of the originator, the originator's vote is much more likely to be the motive. Zero 00:53, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

We could argue all day about how many is an "appreciable number", but we seem to agree that it actually does happen sometimes. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:22, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

That is why I mentioned obscure not prevent. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:14, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

All of that was mentioned in the prior discussion. Another argument against signing an RfC is just a philosophical one: The request isn't personal, so there's nothing to sign. The requester isn't a secret, it's just not part of the request. It's like the reason that you don't sign a Misplaced Pages article when you write one. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 18:47, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

90% + of people who do RFCs sign them. Selfstudier (talk) 19:04, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Articles are not signed because they are joint work and public-facing. Also because wiki usernames are meaningless to the readership. Also because articles would be a horrible mess after many edits. None of those reasons apply to RfCs, so the analogy fails. Zero 00:54, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough. There are enough other reasons not to sign a Misplaced Pages article that I should not have used it as an analogy. For me, the main reason not to sign a Misplaced Pages article is that it isn't personal, like some people believe about their RfC requests. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 18:36, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Just woke up one day and thought I will make a non personal RFC about something I don't care about, right? Selfstudier (talk) 18:43, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

RFCs can be joint work, too.

I think the case you need to make is not "Under ordinary circumstances, signing an RFC is normal and desirable" but "I can hereby prove that under no circumstance whatsoever is it appropriate for an RFC question to be displayed in Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/All without at least the wrong username". Because that's what is suggested above: That it would be preferable to have the RFC misleadingly signed by someone who is not actually asking the RFC question ("having the statement filed by an admin for example") than to have it unsigned. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:33, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Exceptions are fine, we can note those. Otherwise, simply follow common practice and sign, no-one will complain about that. Selfstudier (talk) 16:38, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

The problem isn't that nobody complains about the most common practice. The problem is that sometimes the most common practice results in more harm than benefit. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:44, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Apparently that's only in theory. Do you have some examples of such harm? Selfstudier (talk) 16:46, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Sure: I've personally felt drawn to oppose whatever is being recommended because I recognize the username in the question. I'd like to think that I'm enough of an adult to consider the question fairly or to walk away, but I'm also enough of an adult to recognize that an RFC signed by User:TeeteringOnTBAN is not going to get the same response as the same one from User:Unknown or User:Friend. How about you? Are you a paragon of virtue who is never biased by reputation and past experiences with people, or maybe you just have a hard time remembering names? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:53, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Every RFC is like that in my area. Selfstudier (talk) 19:06, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Looking at the precipitating event:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Should the following sentence be added to the lede?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Did you seriously write "30 seconds is a long time"?

Levivich (talk) 18:50, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Still waitin on those examples, btw. Selfstudier (talk) 19:27, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

I've given you an example of the bias caused by seeing the signature, and you admit that you encounter the same problem. What more do you want? Names and dates, like "Here's a link to an RFC where I chose not to participate because the OP has such a bad reputation, and as proof of the bad reputation, here's the ANI discussion where they earned a TBAN"? If so, sorry: I'm not really interested in engaging in gossip about individuals. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:30, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Then I am not interested in your theorizing, fair's fair. Selfstudier (talk) 19:35, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

You've already agreed that Every RFC...in my area has you reacting to the reputation of the signing editor and your own past experiences with the signing editor. I wouldn't call your personal lived experiences to be "my theorizing". WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:29, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

I would, tho. Selfstudier (talk) 17:33, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

The argument about Arabic or Hebrew usernames is still unconvincing. Does this mean we should hide editors’ names when they edit so that people don’t perceive it in a biased way? Does this mean we should hide usernames in discussions so that editors don’t also perceive their opinions in a biased way? Why do we give an RFC special treatment? Makeandtoss (talk) 19:41, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, we do allow editors to hide their usernames when they edit so that people don’t perceive it in a biased way. See Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppetry#Legitimate uses. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:36, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Legitimate uses requires not crossing the streams. If an editor has a bias on something, and an edit history with that bias, and they use an alt account to hide from that known bias, that is not a legitimate alt account, but is pretending to be someone they are not. A SOCK violation. SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:12, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

“Have to waste seconds” is offensive. It takes much more than seconds, and worse, it derails your thinking. SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:05, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

“Some RFCs are written by more than one person …”. A multi-signed document has to be signed by each signatory, normal and standard. Suggesting that one sign for the others is a weird distraction. On important matters, three admins may be called up to close a discussion, and they do this by each signing the closing statement. At RfA, the multiple nominators each sign separately. SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:08, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

“Unsigned RFCs promote fairness”. No, not really, they hide the bias. The answer to concerns of unfairness, or unfair bias, is transparency. Declare the bias. Name the authors, and any other contributors, and declare any bias. SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:10, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

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

I think that both parts of this suggestion (i.e., telling people that it's usual to sign the username and adding an additional rule to post an explicit justification for not making the popular choice) are WP:CREEPY. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:40, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

It's just an info page. Selfstudier (talk) 15:44, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

So? We don't need instruction creep on info pages, either. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:24, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Info is not instruction. Selfstudier (talk) 17:29, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Telling editors that they should give the name version unless there is some good reason not to, which reason should be given somewhere is instruction, not info. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:30, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

It's info, y'know, cos it's an info page. Selfstudier (talk) 17:33, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

I think you are reading too much into the label at the top of the page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:49, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

No, just getting ready for the RFC is all. Selfstudier (talk) 18:01, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

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

There's also this handy userscript called User:Evad37/TimestampDiffs.js that allows editors to click on the timestamp of a comment and it'll bring them directly to the diff of the comment. Some1 (talk) 23:54, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

That’s some technical skill required to uncover what should be easy, making discovering the anonymous author easy for some and hard for others. SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:15, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

RfCs about Misplaced Pages:Vital articles

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

RFC on signing RFCs

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

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

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

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

Survey

Yes The vast majority of RFCs are signed and there does not appear to be a valid reason for not signing. It has been suggested that a signature may induce bias in responses but there is no evidence for this. It has further been suggested that an RFC may be workshopped and therefore the creation of more than one editor, however the editor posting the RFC can simply indicate the location of the RFCBefore to clarify matters.Selfstudier (talk) 18:19, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
No, for the reasons given above. The reasons to not require an RFC question to end with one person's username are much stronger than the other reasons. The username is not required for any purpose (the bot looks for the date, but not a username). For background, there are now about 10 RFCs are signed with a username for every 1 RFC without it. Someone complains about an RFC that lists the username only in the page history, but not at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/All every year or two. As far as I can remember, every single complaint, including the most recent, involved some sort of political hot button. The most recent complaint is about an RFC related to the Israel–Hamas war, and I frankly couldn't fault other editors if they cynically wondered whether the real desire is to know whether the person who started that RFC is Jewish. (The complainant has already said that the RFC question complies with WP:RFCNEUTRAL.) We have a number of trans editors whose usernames indicate that they are out and proud, or their WP:CUSTOMSIGs use the colors or emojis that are associated with the Transgender flag. If one of them felt it was necessary to start an RFC, then I see no reason for us to require them to put their username, and therefore to disclose their trans identity, at the end of the question. The questions are supposed to be impersonal and neutral enough that the identity of the person starting the question is unimportant. Also, note that RFCs are sometimes posted on behalf of a group (or an individual who isn't sure how to start an RFC), so adding a username would be misleading. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:34, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
You should strike your "I frankly couldn't fault..." sentence as it is really offensive. You have been here long enough to know that casting aspersions like that is not allowed. Zero 08:28, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
No, for the reasons in "WAID's No Box" in the previous subsection. I don't sign my RFC questions -- I just timestamp them, then add a "(as RFC initiator)" or "(as proposer)" to my !vote. It's much fairer that way. I know that seeing my name at the end of an RFC question will influence the response. There are also other situations, as detailed in the "No Box" above, e.g. when the person who posts the RFC isn't really the "author" of the RFC, or when there are multiple RFC initiators. All in all, I really don't see the benefit in requiring signatures after the RFC question -- I really think it's better to forbid it, in fact. RFCs should be decided on their merits; who initiated it is irrelevant. Levivich (talk) 18:44, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
I can go along with forbidding altogether as well. Selfstudier (talk) 18:49, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't understand how an unsigned RfC followed by a !vote "as proposer" could influence others less than a signed RfC. The !vote is where you express your opinion and by implication how you wish other people will vote; people who hate you are now much better informed on how to vote against you. Zero 12:46, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
The vote doesn't show on FRS or at WP:RFC. Clicking/scrolling is a real discouragement on the internet. Levivich (talk) 13:45, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
I would support changing the mechanism so that signatures don't appear at all in FRS or WP:RFC. Whether they are signed or not. Then people who use those services to watch for interesting RfCs will decide only according to the topic whether to visit the actual RfC. Zero 03:31, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
Unless there's a different FRS page I don't know about, the Misplaced Pages:Feedback request service talk page notifications don't show the RfC questions at all (example: ). Some1 (talk) 13:13, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
You are correct. The RFC questions are shown only on the central pages (e.g., Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/All) and at the discussion themselves. The FRS messages provide only a link. WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:29, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Also, some editors start RFCs and do not immediately post their own views (or at all). WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:59, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

To me I would support this option as a reasonable middle ground solution, tackling a bit both concerns of the supposed potential of prejudice against the opener, and of lack of transparency. Makeandtoss (talk) 18:55, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Who initiated it is never irrelevant, and is often important to discover some nefarious intent hidden behind a bland looking proposal. SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:17, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
No, RFCs should be as little about individual editors as possible. Unsigned RFCs won’t stop the most battlegroundy from checking history, but I think it would curb less conscious predispositions. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 08:42, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
No, signing an RfC makes it personal and a requester of comments should be able to present it as not a personal request. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 22:42, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
No as per WAID and in particular because of the tribalism that is prevalent around many of the most contentious arguments that prompt RFCs. If it really matters, and someone truly wishes to go spelunking through the edit history, so be it, but for the average wikipedian, not having a signature should be fine; they don't need to know the person who proposed an RFC to try to decide on the matter at hand. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 03:36, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
Yes it shouldn't be hidden, just as much as an edit summary shouldn't have the username hidden. But as for a middle ground solution, I am ready to support Levivich's suggestion, which tackles a bit both concerns, that of supposed potential for prejudice, as well as the potential for lack of transparency. Makeandtoss (talk) 18:58, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
No, not necessary, and wouldn't improve Misplaced Pages. Andre🚐 05:00, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
Yes, because none of the reasons for not using one's username outweigh the value of doing so (transparency being chief among them). Levivich's compromise is also a good one. Lewisguile (talk) 19:51, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
No largely per the arguments above (with no preference for/against a full ban on signatures). If an RfC is bad enough to require sanctions, it takes less than a minute to look up the creator, and if it doesn’t, the creator likely doesn’t matter. FortunateSons (talk) 12:11, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
Yes. All talk page posts should be signed. Anonymous RfC introductions are weird and stupid. They make it hard to work out what is going on. They make it look like not a talk page, which is disconcerting. Multi-section anonymous RfC starts are bamboozling, a barrier to participating. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:03, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

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

As well as signing my RFCs I don't usually close RFCs I am involved in but thanks for the unnecessary ping anyway. Selfstudier (talk) 10:18, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

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

ArbCom limits on RFC comments

Just FYI:

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

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

How long is the result of an RFC valid for?

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

until you can find a reason to argue that consensus has changed or will change somehow. maybe a new piece of evidence, or the previous RFC had only local consensus, or nobody is around who will raise the fact that a previous RFC answered it already Bluethricecreamman (talk) 01:40, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

"Local consensus" is one of those complicated phrases on wiki. The policy means "a consensus that conflicts with policies and guidelines". But some editors use it to indicate "only a few people participated in the discussion" or even "those editors disagreed with me, so they must be wrong".

As a widely advertised discussion, an RFC should be assumed to represent the community's view at that time.

@Plasticwonder, there is no set rule against immediately contesting a decision (assuming a consensus formed). However, if you run the same question less than six months later, you can expect someone to complain. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:10, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

That's understandable. Plasticwonder (talk) 02:41, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

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)