Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Archive 21

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15←Archive 19Archive 20Archive 21

Pl. suggest format for RfC

I am in role of discussion facilitator at Talk:Jinn#Pre-RfC. The content dispute is about how much coverage is due.

After a long enough discussion among involved users Primary preparation of RfC question is almost getting ready. There are around 4 paragraph/ sentences due for RfC discussion. My perception is this RfC discussion would need more deliberation support in which and how much proposed content coverage would be appropriate. So looking for a suitable content deliberation friendly format, just beyond usual support/oppose format.

Please have a look at Primary preparation of RfC question and suggest which RfC format will be more suitable? Bookku (talk) 12:07, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon, Please refer to one of your Apr 2024 DRN close, where in you said ".. they may submit a Request for Comments,which should be neutrally worded, and preferably in three parts. I am willing to provide assistance in submitting an RFC if requested. ..".
I helping as discussion facilitator in above case, but I have not set up RfC for Multiple paragraphs, so please see if you can help out in setting up the RfC. Bookku (talk) 07:46, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
User:Bookku - I will look within 48 hours. Robert McClenon (talk) 08:00, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
Would wait and look forward to. Thanks Bookku (talk) 08:19, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
User talk:Louis P. Boog/sandbox/Jinn sandbox 4-20-2024#Primary preparation of RfC question has multiple proposed additions. I think it would make more sense to have an RFC cover changes only to one section at a time. For example, the "Proposed additions of text 1" covers changes in the section ==Islam==, and the others are about other sections, so just do that one question by itself, and leave the others for another day.
As for getting people to have a conversation, it often helps if they are directly told that the editors are looking for (non-voting) comments, suggestions about how to change the text, etc. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:57, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
@Robert McClenon and @WhatamIdoing After above discussion and discussion with user initiated Talk:Jinn#RfC: Proposed additions of text 1. Requesting you to have a look and do suggest formatting improvements, if any. Bookku (talk) 13:41, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
User:Bookku - I will take a look. However, the better time to review the format of an RFC is before it is activated, because changes to the RFC while it is active complicate things both during discussion and for the closer. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:21, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
@Robert McClenon Yes you are right*. As such by Wikipedia editor interests standard, Talk:Jinn seems low attention topic, so, most probably, much discussion is unlikely to take place in couple of days, before you suggest changes, if any.
  • For some or other reason the RfC got delayed since April, though RfC requesting user LPB has very appreciable patience, I had to give way to their request at some point. Bookku (talk) 07:27, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

arbitrary break for navigation

User:Bookku - I have looked at the RFC twice. It confuses and puzzles me. I have a hard time understanding what it is trying to ask or say. I don't have much more to say about it. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:42, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for sharing this. Though page views to Talk:Jinn increased after initiating RfC increased that did not translate into expected user participation in the discussion, that intrigues me too.
Time constraints and restraints being DRN moderator and Admin on part of Robert McClenon are very much understandable to me, but for sake of improving participation shall need to understand from other uninvolved users What part of Talk:Jinn#RfC: Proposed additions of text 1 confuses and puzzles users uninvolved so far? so we can improve possibly this RfC and next RfCs in this series.
Which of following may have area of difficulty to understand?
1) Heading of RfC?
2) Question of RfC?
3) There is no clear support oppose request in RfC question? or Question is too neutral to understand significance to involved users?
4) Sentence/ paragrapha requested to be added is confusing?
5) Ref-List and author brief provided in collapse template.
6) Brief of general content disagreement of involved user provided in collapse template at beginning of discussion section? and it's connect with RfC question?
7) User sandbox which provides glimpse how the change would look?
8) List of questions at user sandbox which will come to RfC one by one?
9) It's some thing else then pl. help understand.
Let me ping few users to uninvolved so far in present RfC to understand their inputs about above questions regarding area of improvement in on going RfC format.
@Eucalyptusmint and Zero0000: @Toadspike and EEng: @TFD and Austronesier: @Maproom and Blueboar:
Why set of above users pinged?
above users may have heard a bit about Talk:Jinn discussion previous at WP:NRON still uninvolved at this moment in on going RfC. - though WP:NRON related RfC question is planned later.
Bookku (talk) 10:21, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
I don’t really know why I was pinged… I know next to nothing about the subject (and don’t really have an interest in it). Is there a question about how to interpret or apply policy/guidelines that I could assist with? Blueboar (talk) 11:45, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
Sorry I didn't intend to disrupt you. It's not what others are finding difficult but what an uninvolved user like might be finding difficult? Unless we survey we won't understand our area of improvement that's why request. Bookku (talk) 12:18, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
I think this is s question about how to ask a question about a topic I know nothing about. I'm out of here. Maproom (talk) 12:17, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
No issues. just I had to seek inputs from those who came across only a little and how far they find understanding RfC and how rfC question can be improved. Sorry if I disrupted in good faith Bookku (talk) 12:20, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
Not a disruption… I took a quick look at the proposed RFC, and my initial reaction as an outsider was “Too long, didn’t read”. You are asking too many questions at one time.
I was able to understand that the basic question being asked is: “should the article text include statements A, B, and C in sections X, Y and Z”. But about half way through I got lost in the wall of text, and stopped reading. I also quickly got confused by all the green drop down boxes.
My advice is: keep it simple. File an RFC asking about one section, resolve that… then file a second RFC about the next section, etc.
Finally, this is a somewhat niche topic area… I don’t expect you will get a lot of non-involved editors commenting. Ascertaining consensus will be difficult. Good luck. Blueboar (talk) 13:21, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
Well, that's what he did. The RFC asks only one short question ("In section "Islam": Should the following sentence be added to "Islam" section in the article?"). There's a whole lot of unnecessary small text instruction clutter that could be removed, and there was no need at all to add ===Survey===, ===Discussion:Proposed additions of text 1===, and ====Proposed additions of text 1 - Discussion==== sub-sections, but the question itself is quite short and simple. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:20, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
I think you and Blueboar have a point.
Average per day page views in 2023 for Talk:Jinn were 5. After initiating RfC page views were 80, 60, 80 in three days. Idk what can be ideal participation ratio difference is considerable to ignore.
@Louis P. Boog scheduled wiki break is coming let LPB restart the RfC afresh taking above points into account when they come back. Bookku (talk) 16:33, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
WAID: It was worse before this fix. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:33, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
My good faith effort was to provide all relevant info at outset through collapse templates, easy navigation and presentation; with your valuable inputs I realize, that actually may have added into complexity. As per inputs henceforth I shall strive to keep it as much simpler.
You would have noticed, I always seek community feed back, fully respect and strive to improve with collaborative support of all Wikipedians. Bookku (talk) 13:16, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
Agreeing with the points that have been brought up by Blueboar and WhatamIdoing, there's a lot of info. It makes the whole thing hard to follow and takes away from question(s) you are seeking input on. Based on your list of questions above/feedback you're requesting, am providing some thoughts below on "text 1", hoping it can help some.
1) Heading of RfC: instead of saying "proposed additions of text 1", could say, "proposed additions to Islam section"
2) Question of Rfc: currently the proposed question is written as "Should the following sentence be added to "Islam" section in the article?" Took a look at this section and it has 4 subsections, so it's unclear where this proposed text is meant to go.
3/4) unable to comment as am not familiar with this topic
5) Ref-List and author brief provided: providing reflist is helpful, the author brief isn't needed
6) Brief of general content disagreement: also don't think it needs to be included in the rfc itself, probably can be placed elsewhere
- Eucalyptusmint (talk) 22:55, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
@Eucalyptusmint
2) Would it be okay to ask
"Should the following sentence be added at the beginning of section "Islam" in the article?"
Many thanks for valuable inputs. Fyi: @Louis P. Boog
Bookku (talk) 08:34, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Happy to help! and yep, I think that works. Eucalyptusmint (talk) 13:59, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
I suggest having no sub-sections and no instructions. Just ask the question, sign it, and stop. See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Example formatting#Most popular if you need an example of what this looks like. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:15, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
  • @User:Louis P. Boog Users seem to be finding associating with RfC difficult for unexpressed reason. If there is not adequate participation at this point then, is there a point in continuing RfC at this point? would it be better to suspend the RfC for some weeks and restart when some uninvolved users could tell at least what they are finding difficult with RfC? Bookku (talk) 12:49, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
    No objection. Perhaps I should have gotten involved more when the RfC first opened. --Louis P. Boog (talk) 15:39, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Format of an RfC

Does the format of an RfC always have to have a subsection called "Survey" in which people vote and another subsection called "Discussion" in which people discuss or challenge each other's votes/comments? I ask because an RfC that I began on Talk:Mahatma Gandhi looked like this, where you could view what someone's choice was and how they had responded to queries or challenges to that choice. Several editors, including at least two admins, had already responded and replied to queries or challenges. At this point an editor made this edit with edit summary "standard RfC format", whereupon they proceeded to disconnect the vote from the immediate follow up challenges. The format makes a reply/challenge less effective as it is made in a different section by pinging the commenting editor. If they are not able to respond, or choose not to, then it is hard for a third party reader to figure out who is was that was being questioned and who the one not replying. Most editors will not scroll up and down, back and forth, between these sections to evaluate a response. My own feeling is that such a "survey" and "discussion" format makes it very easy to cast facile or unsupported votes.

So, cutting long story short: is this format compulsory? Is it Wikipedia or RfC policy? Look forward to your answers, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:09, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

It should usually not have such a section. The most popular format has no subdivisions. An RFC is a normal talk-page discussion, and it should therefore not create an artificial separation between votes and interactive discussions. Subdivisions can be useful (e.g., if a very large number of responses is expected), so they're not banned, but they're neither required nor common, either. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:53, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
Thank you very much. This is very helpful, not to mention well-written. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:03, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
@Fowler&fowler: See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Example formatting. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:17, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
I knew I was reinventing the wheel, and a very wobbly one at that. Thank you very much for that link. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:52, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
Maybe we should add something to the main page about this? I just checked the open RFCs and found that a majority don't have any sub-sections at all, and only about 20% have separate subsections for ===Survey=== and ===Discussion===. Of those, I'd say that maybe half were warranted (e.g., Talk:Lucy Letby#RFC on first sentence with 188 comments so far, or my WP:PROPOSAL at Wikipedia talk:Notability (species), which has 452 comments so far). That separation was more common for non-articles.
Talk:Asmongold#RfC: Should Asmongold's full name be included in the article? (started by Some1) and Talk:Herrenvolk democracy#RfC Should the Israeli Flag be displayed in the article? (started by Ad Orientem) were formatted with separate ===Yes=== and ===No=== voting sections, which is standard for Wikipedia:Requests for adminship but should be very rare otherwise.
Perhaps another bullet point in Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Creating an RfC, to say something like:
WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:53, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
I am emphatically ambivalent on the question of how to format an RfC. That said, I tend to favor legal minimalism. IMHO an RfC should be formatted in whatever way seems most practicable at the time, and then allowed to develop organically. If a section needs to be added, then add it. If there are too many, then go ahead and boldy merge them if such can be done without causing problems. If there is a disagreement, then discuss. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:27, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
It sounds like the bullet points you're talking about are the numbered steps to create an RfC, so advice on the discussion format wouldn't fit as another item there. The misnamed section "Example of an RfC" is where advice on formatting of the discussion is. That section implies it's normal not to have survey/discussion format, but if it's important to emphasize that, this is where it would go. It might make sense to refer to this section in step 2 of the instructions. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 02:17, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Incomprehensible RFC

If I think that an RFC is incomprehensible, due to a combination of grammar errors and sloppy construction, and that an uninvolved administrator should end it, because it isn't useful, where should I make that request? It isn't an urgent conduct issue, and so it shouldn't go to WP:ANI. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:08, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon, if you post a link here, someone will usually notice and take care of it.
This is not an admin's job. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:31, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
In the case of Talk:United States and state-sponsored terrorism#RfC for United States and state-sponsored terrorism#Syria, it looks like the editor started the RFC and then spent the next couple of hours trying to clarify the question. That happens sometimes, and while it's unfortunate, it's not really against the rules. If your first attempt isn't making sense, it's really in everyone's best interest if you try to fix it.
For an analogous situation, think about Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#A3. No content. We try to give editors some time to fix their mistakes. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:42, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
I would describe the sequence as that, first, the editor started the RFC, then other editors criticized it harshly, and then the editor spent the next couple of hours trying to fix it. The difference is that they restated it as a question after being told that it was a poorly formed RFC. The difference is that at least two editors responded and criticized before the originator improved it. I have mixed opinions on whether that matters. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:15, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
Thank you, User:WhatamIdoing - Yes, that is the RFC in point, but this is both a question about it and a more general question, because other RFCs are also malformed. Now that the RFC asks a question, it still asks the question in a form that is grammatically garbled, and I still don't think that I can answer it. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:13, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
It looks to me like the question is whether it's okay to imply that the US is providing weapons to that terrorist group, on the grounds that they have acquired some weapons. It rather reminds me of a line in "The Whisky Priest": "Either you sell arms or you don't. If you sell them, they will inevitably end up with people who have the cash to buy them". The US sells arms; therefore, some of them will inevitably end up with people who have the cash to buy them. Or who scavenge them off battlefields. Or who steal them out of warehouses. Or any of many other ways that these problems can happen. But that doesn't necessarily mean that a Wikipedia article should imply that the US government intentionally, directly, or knowingly provided the weapons to this particular group – unless reliable sources say so, in which case the Wikipedia article should, too. It will ultimately all hinge on the sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:12, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
I agree the question was unintelligible, even after the attempts to fix it, mainly because of the fractured English. I think I figured out what comments the requester meant to request and have reworded it to say that. Ordinarily, it is a bad idea to make a big change to an RfC statement after 5 days, but I think most editors invited to comment will have skipped this RfC because the RfC statement becomes unintelligible after the fourth word, so it's best to start over.
I guess we've found another purpose for the RfC talk page beyond discussing the RfC information page: asking for uninvolved editors to help fix an RfC. We previously (by consensus of editors watching this page) extended the purpose to include asking for help in starting an RfC, so it makes sense. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 16:44, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

lower BBC to generally unreliable specifically for hamas israel conflict

This discussion is off-topic for this page; it is a WP:RSN matter. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:34, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/09/07/bbc-breached-guidelines-more-1500-times-israel-hamas-warNotQualified (talk) 20:49, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't think that there is any realistic chance of editors agreeing to do that. The information might be useful in individual cases. I don't know who's still willing to work on the mess that is WP:ARBPIA articles and therefore might be able to help. Maybe @BilledMammal? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:11, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
I think the primary use case for that information is if someone were to say something like "We have to say Israel is engaging in genocide because the BBC did", then it would be appropriate to point out that the BBC has been struggling to get this area right. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:12, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
this is the current summary:
BBC is a British publicly funded broadcaster. It is considered generally reliable. This includes BBC News, BBC documentaries, and the BBC History site (on BBC Online). However, this excludes BBC projects that incorporate user-generated content (such as h2g2 and the BBC Domesday Project) and BBC publications with reduced editorial oversight (such as Collective). Statements of opinion should conform to the corresponding guideline.
i believe we should add "Collective)... and statements around the Israeli-Hamas conflict, especially BBC Arabic." NotQualified (talk) 21:20, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Disclose relevant RfC via editnotice?

Should/could a new editnotice template be created to point to one or more closed RfC(s) and their respective outcome(s) for a given article? (naturally excluding "No consensus" ones) This would only be relevant for a handful of pages at any given time.

This would be very helpful in cases where there's an old (and yet still representative), archived RfC on an article's talk page that is still regularly being invoked to restore a given status quo. A brief notice to that effect, could really reduce the amount of similar edits having to be reverted over and over again for some article that happens to be in the public eye at the time.

Yes, a talk page FAQ may serve to do the same, but is less commonly seen or appreciated by newcomers in particular. To be honest, these also sometimes appear very smug and undemocratic to outsiders. Biohistorian15 (talk) 12:45, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Another way this is done is with a comment near the disputed content that says, "If you're thinking of changing this date, see ... where consensus was found to use this date." That is easier and more visible than an edit notice.
Side note: sometimes that comment is worded, "Do not change this ..." I find that inappropriate and always delete it. If the order is followed by a reason (such as an RfC), I leave the reason. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 17:02, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

RFC statistics

If you've ever been curious about past RFCs, see User:BilledMammal/List of RFCs. 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 [beginning of the pandemic], 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: George Ho has started about 200 RFCs, though only a few since 2017. Robert McClenon and Snooganssnoogans have each started more than 100 RFCs. The counts fall off rapidly from there. Only a dozen editors have started 50+ RFCs (pinging Cunard, Binksternet, GoodDay, SMcCandlish, Helper201, The Four Deuces; 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 Wikipedia), 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.

WhatamIdoing (talk) 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. Robert McClenon (talk) 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. WhatamIdoing (talk) 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 WP:FRS) to many such RfCs, though. They seem to serve a useful function when done properly, but the noob factor is palapable, as very often WP:RFCBEFORE is ignored, or the RfC is nowhere near neutrally worded and is trying to force a point that some inexperienced editor isn't "winning" 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 WP:OWN / WP:CONLEVEL problems.)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  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. WhatamIdoing (talk) 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. GoodDay (talk) 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. TFD (talk) 15:51, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
A little while ago, an editor (NatGertler, 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. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:06, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
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. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 23:05, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
It seems like the sort of sensible thing you might say. WhatamIdoing (talk) 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.
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".
And let's remember that Wikipedia 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.
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 any RfC, they are not the ones you want responding in any event. SnowRise let's rap 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. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:51, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Electronic Intifada should be deprecated

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Moved to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Electronic Intifada.

In this article titled "German envoy admits he spread lie about 7 October mass rapes". 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. LuffyDe (talk) 19:54, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

This seems a borderline WP:ECP violation, but there have been RFCs about EI in recent months. Remsense ‥ 论 19:57, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
@LuffyDe and Remsense: This is off-topic for this page, which is for discussing improvements to the page Wikipedia:Requests for comment. In fact, the question appears to be something that should go to WP:RSN. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:27, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
Sure, I would move it there. LuffyDe (talk) 22:34, 17 October 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.

Support and suggestions for improving a draft RFC around whether advocacy groups can be used for WP:BLP or if they count as WP:SPS

User:Bluethricecreamman/SPS_RFC

This is part of a few discussions[1][2] around whether literature from advocacy groups can count as WP:SPS, especially in the context of WP:BLPSPS.

Current discussions total is about 1.4 WP:Tomats 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, WP:USESPS, 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. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 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. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 18:19, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

This relates to an RFC on RSN, see WP:RSN#RfC on People’s Daily. 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. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 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. WhatamIdoing (talk) 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. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 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. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:20, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
+1 agree to the revert. Folks can always debate appropriateness of an RFC. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 16:25, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

RfCs about Wikipedia: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 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. Zerotalk 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. Zerotalk 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 Wikipedia 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. Zerotalk 00:54, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
Fair enough. There are enough other reasons not to sign a Wikipedia article that I should not have used it as an analogy. For me, the main reason not to sign a Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia:Requests for comment/All without at least the wrong username". Because that's what is suggested above: That it would be preferable to have the RFC misleadingly signed by someone who is not actually asking the RFC question ("having the statement filed by an admin for example") than to have it unsigned. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:33, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
Exceptions are fine, we can note those. Otherwise, simply follow common practice and sign, no-one will complain about that. Selfstudier (talk) 16:38, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
The problem isn't that nobody complains about the most common practice. The problem is that sometimes the most common practice results in more harm than benefit. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:44, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
Apparently that's only in theory. Do you have some examples of such harm? Selfstudier (talk) 16:46, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
Sure: I've personally felt drawn to oppose whatever is being recommended because I recognize the username in the question. I'd like to think that I'm enough of an adult to consider the question fairly or to walk away, but I'm also enough of an adult to recognize that an RFC signed by User:TeeteringOnTBAN is not going to get the same response as the same one from User:Unknown or User:Friend. How about you? Are you a paragon of virtue who is never biased by reputation and past experiences with people, or maybe you just have a hard time remembering names? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:53, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
Every RFC is like that in my area. Selfstudier (talk) 19:06, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
Looking at the precipitating event:
WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:43, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
Unnecessary, we have lots of RFCs without any problems, it's just the unsigned ones we complain about. Selfstudier (talk) 16:47, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
Wrong, I never complain about unsigned RfCs (undated RfCs I will add a timestamp to), but I often complain about RfCs that are failing in some other way; sometimes I fix these up because I suspect that the filer might not understand my explanation. Examples: Special:Diff/1256748178; Special:Diff/1256578999; Special:Diff/1256555117; Special:Diff/1256426747. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:31, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
That's you, we're complaining here ;) We have complained about it before, now we havin another go. Selfstudier (talk) 18:35, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
Maybe we'll have a (signed) RFC about it. Selfstudier (talk) 18:35, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
Not sure what you are trying to ask about but I won’t be trying to remember details about more than half a year old incident and not sure what is meant with precipitating incident. Accountability as in knowing who to ask when the statement is not neutral/not representative of the discussion/etc. As for the argument that identity of opener shouldn’t affect discussion, this would be also true for everything, including even edits or discussions, so I can’t see why RfC should be a unique exception. Makeandtoss (talk) 19:17, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
Are you claiming that the RFC question is non-neutral? Here's a copy of the entire question:
"Should the following sentence be added to the lede?

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

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

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

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

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

Still waitin on those examples, btw. Selfstudier (talk) 19:27, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
I've given you an example of the bias caused by seeing the signature, and you admit that you encounter the same problem. What more do you want? Names and dates, like "Here's a link to an RFC where I chose not to participate because the OP has such a bad reputation, and as proof of the bad reputation, here's the ANI discussion where they earned a TBAN"? If so, sorry: I'm not really interested in engaging in gossip about individuals. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:30, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
Then I am not interested in your theorizing, fair's fair. Selfstudier (talk) 19:35, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
You've already agreed that Every RFC...in my area has you reacting to the reputation of the signing editor and your own past experiences with the signing editor. I wouldn't call your personal lived experiences to be "my theorizing". WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:29, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
I would, tho. Selfstudier (talk) 17:33, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
The argument about Arabic or Hebrew usernames is still unconvincing. Does this mean we should hide editors’ names when they edit so that people don’t perceive it in a biased way? Does this mean we should hide usernames in discussions so that editors don’t also perceive their opinions in a biased way? Why do we give an RFC special treatment? Makeandtoss (talk) 19:41, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
Yes, we do allow editors to hide their usernames when they edit so that people don’t perceive it in a biased way. See Wikipedia: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)

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)

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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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. Zerotalk 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. Zerotalk 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. Zerotalk 03:31, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
    Unless there's a different FRS page I don't know about, the Wikipedia:Feedback request service talk page notifications don't show the RfC questions at all (example: [3]). Some1 (talk) 13:13, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
    You are correct. The RFC questions are shown only on the central pages (e.g., Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia:Closure requests? (See the FAQ at the top of this page and #4 in Wikipedia: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)

I believe ARBCOM exceeds its authority here, setting policy affecting editors generally, editors who were not involved with ARBCOM.
To make it right, the ARBCOM statement should be put to a ratification RfC. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:34, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
Do you think that would change the outcome, or are you suggesting this primarily from the procedural POV?
The current wording, BTW, is this:
"All participants in formal discussions (RfCs, RMs, etc) within the area of conflict are urged to keep their comments concise, and are limited to 1,000 words per discussion. Citations and quotations (whether from sources, Wikipedia articles, Wikipedia discussions, or elsewhere) do not count toward the word limit. This motion will sunset two years from the date of its passage." WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:13, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
Definitely the procedural POV is strong. ArbCom is not authorised to write policy, and for good reasons.
I would suggest a change or wording, but would support the idea. I once made a similar proposal, to limit character count for any single editor to contribute to an RM. I think it is a very good idea to encourage concision in arguments in formal discussions. I think it is a good idea for verbose contributors to have to shorten their earlier statement when they feel it is essential to write more.
I would alter “, and are limited to 1,000 words per discussion”, from being a high command, to something actionable. Eg. If a participants exceeds 1,000 words in a discussion, they are to be reminded that they must shorten their contribution, or their contribution may be removed and they may be banned from further direct participation. SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:11, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
generally seems like a bad idea to test arbcom power and its limits unless they are truly out of line
rfc against an arbcom ruling means we could rfc anything they do Bluethricecreamman (talk) 02:32, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
I disagree. ArbCom is a forum for last resort. Sometimes, like here, their justification in acting is that the community is too slow, or disinterested.
I disagree that the word “test” is right. I suggest “ratification”. What are the possible outcomes? (1) my favourite, the idea gets implemented as WP:RFC & RM policy without the sunset clause and subject to ongoing changes in consensus as per all other policy; (2) ratify; (3) “no consensus”; (4) a differing community consensus established by RfC. Which one would you fear? SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:18, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
This rule only applies to ARBPIA subjects. I'm not sure that it should be extended to all subject areas. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:38, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
Me either.
However, thinking of that occasional unfortunate behaviour: “If I keep talking until everyone else is exhausted, I win”, maybe it should, as a recommendation. SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:12, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
Perhaps we should look at the ARBPIA restriction as an experiment. It will be interesting to find out whether people feel it's helpful (e.g., a year from now). OTOH, I'm pretty sure that several of us exceeded that limit in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles/RFC on pharmaceutical drug prices, and I'm not sure that was a bad thing (although rough on the POV of the closer, who had to read it all). The usual RFC in an ARBPIA article is closer to "Shall we mention ______ in the lead of this article?", which doesn't require much explanation or discussion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 08:48, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
We should look at everything as an experiment. Keep in mind that in theory, Wikipedia can never work.
Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles/RFC on pharmaceutical drug prices? I see a conglomeration of eight similar but different RfC questions.
You, in particular, are an tangentialicist. You keep spinning of tangential questions. Is that a bad thing? I think “no”, because they gain traction and quality responses.
Would have your contributions have been better if you were asked to reduce your word count to 1000 words per question. And allowing links to extended statements? I think “yes”, mainly on the basis of more people would be finding it easier to engage.
But anyway, would you support me putting the ratification question to an RfC? Note that I continue to believe that RfC questions should not be put unilaterally. SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:10, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
My goal in that RFC was to get more information. Asking questions (sometimes? usually?) advanced that goal.
I would not start an RFC to endorse the ArbCom limit at this time. I think we should first have a few (three?) RFCs under this rule, to see whether it has any practical effect. I specifically think a big discussion about the new limit shouldn't happen during the first affected RFC. If we're going to experiment, then we need to collect the data. We have a risk of "The limit it illegitimate; I know because an editor on the One True™ Side of this RFC hit the word-count limit and had to stop participating" and we should not encourage that. It'll just be a variation on "This RFC question is non-neutral; I know because if it was neutral, editors would be voting my way". WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:38, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
I said “ratify”. “To endorse” would be non neutral. 😀
Please ping me when three affected RfCs have happened. SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:31, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
(We will either have to endorse it or reject it. I suppose we should start talking now about what a 'no consensus' close would mean in practice.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:27, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
I disagree with your false dichotomy.
I also disagree that prediscussion of “no consensus” should ever be a reason to not start an RfC.
I do agree it would be better to let a few word-limited RfCs play out first. SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:30, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
I submit that “no consensus” means that the question wasn’t very good. Usually, more attention should be paid to modifying the question or proposal, to enable consensus. SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:37, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
On a question like this, no consensus often means that the community is divided. If 50% say yes, and 50% say no, then that's "no consensus". (On a question like this, the strength of arguments is a minor factor. There is no policy-based argument to be made for or against a decision about a procedure.)
My point wasn't to defer an RFC until after a pre-discussion of what "no consensus" means. My point was that if it ends up as no consensus, then all the "ayes" will declare that no consensus means their side won, and all the "nays" will declare that it means their side won. It would not be unreasonable to have some idea of what should happen in that case. (I doubt that it will; editors generally defer to ArbCom on decisions like this.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:47, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
In comparison, wouldn't over talking in an RFC be already covered by WP:BLUDGEON?
dont want to set arbitrary word limits on all topic areas, ARBPIA area happens to just be toxic enough arbitrary limits happen to be necessary. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 22:29, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
Talking too much can be disruptive, and on rare occasions, it's resulted in an editor getting blocked. But for the most part, people just complain a lot remind each other of our social standards and don't seek to remove the comments or to block the talkative editor. A large section might get collapsed.
Sometimes "talking too much" is informative. For example, it can show that the person feels like their view isn't being heard or that they are very upset about whatever's happening. In that way, letting people participate freely is helpful for understanding all the sides. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:36, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Don't bludgeon the process#Improving your arguments in the future could be improved to suggest better techniques for people who contribute too many words. SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:35, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
That's a good idea. As I am (in)famously verbose, I suggest that it someone else make those suggestions. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:48, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Responding to RFC - mark up tips

I propose that the examples section describe how to reply to an RfC and should favor simple replies to the RfC question. When responding on my phone, it is quite difficult to add a bullet at the end of the section because it requires editing the source and often conflicts with other editors. It would be easier to simply reply to the question.

Example:

RfC for adding more cowbell to the SNL article
Should the SNL article have more cowbell?

Support because an article can never have too much cowbell
Oppose because cowbell should only be enjoyed in moderation

Thanks. I assume I'm just missing an easy way to add a !vote. If so please enlighten me. Thanks! Dw31415 (talk) 01:46, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

@Dw31415, you're not missing an easier way. In practice, you should reply however's best for you, and other people will re-format as necessary. If anybody yells at you about this, please let us know. A post on this talk page will be sufficient. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:01, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
I don't actually understand the part about conflicts. Are these edit conflicts? If so, I think it is highly unusual to have an edit conflict when making a quick response like this to an RfC. But also, doesn't any page edit have the same chance of conflicting? Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 04:43, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
If you're looking at a high-traffic RFC right after the WP:FRS bot has run, then an WP:EDITCONFLICT is going to be more common. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:27, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
Yes, edit conflicts. I got one on the second RfC I responded to, so maybe I was just unlucky. I’ve found the reply feature so much easier to use, I was wondering why that wasn’t the encouraged way to do it or if I was missing an easier way. Thanks. We can mark this one as answered, I can do it later if no one else has the chance. Dw31415 (talk) 12:34, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Requiring openers to add this link(s) would (a) concretely encourage openers to exhaust (or at least attempt) discussions options before opening (b) Help the community more easily locate relevant prior discussions. spintheer (talk) 04:39, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

It's usually trivial to see whether due diligence was done, as well as closing a premature RfC early. Seems much more like an unneeded stumbling block, all things considered. Remsense ‥ 论 04:41, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
Well, looks like there isn't much support for this proposal. Maybe we can revisit this if it becomes a more widespread problem. spintheer (talk) 23:31, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
Having a prior discussion is a very good idea, but it is also not an absolute requirement. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:53, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
Yes, I don't think it would be good to make it an absolute requirement. Do we actually want people attempting to shut down RFCs over what they consider a lack of RFCBEFORE? There are some situations where going straight to an RFC may make sense, if it's a simple up-and-down question that clearly isn't going to reach an easy solution otherwise and the considerations are obvious; but more importantly we don't want to add too much red tape to the RFC process if we can avoid it, since the whole point is to resolve things, not to spark another round of arguing over whether RFCBEFORE occurred and was adequate. All else aside, the reality is that once an RFC has started to gather steam it is usually no longer reasonable to try and shut it down, not unless the participants are calling it a bad RFC or somesuch; and that means that a hard RFCBEFORE requirement would be an empty letter at best and could easily turn into something people point to when doing actually-disruptive things (like trying to shut down an otherwise-functional RFC after people have begun weighing in.) --Aquillion (talk) 14:08, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
There are still people out there who look upon RfC as the first step in discussion, and not as a late step (if not the very last step). Requiring RFCBEFORE is one way of discouraging them from reaching straight for the {{rfc}} tag. See for example the following three edits at Talk:Sinfest: 05:08, 28 January 2025; 07:00, 28 January 2025; 00:59, 30 January 2025. That's three RfCs on the same page in slightly under 44 hours. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:33, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
It looks like only one of them is open now. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:43, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
Yes, the first two each got pulled within hours (not by me). There was only one open at once; but for the matter at hand, I still feel that it was one too many. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:25, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Archive_21&oldid=1283754489"