Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment

Education about RFC mechanics

Twice in the last two days I've had to explain to editors that RFC tags are removed after 30 days. They looked at the top of an old discussion or the RFC listing pages, didn't see a tag, and said they believed that meant that it wasn't an RFC after all.

I could wish that we changed the RFC template/bot behavior (to keep the tag and the anchor to show that it was an RFC, but to make it 'inactive' somehow), but in the meantime, I'm wondering whether the FRS bot could include a rotating bit of advice on RFCs, like "You can find all the open RFCs here" or "If the result is unclear, you can request a closing summary" or "Compromises are important" or "RFC tags are automatically removed after a month, but you can shorten or extend this time" or whatever else might help. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:34, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps you could specify what posts you're talking about and have the courtesy to ping the users that you think need education from you? If one of them is me, I do confess to saying "I don't believe there is an RfC here as I don't see it in Wikipedia:Requests for Comment/All ..." and if I'd searched that page's history I could have found that there "there used to be an RfC here". Peter Gulutzan (talk) 18:35, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

@Peter Gulutzan: Straight off the top of my head, there is Wikipedia:Closure requests#Talk:Black Irish (folklore)#Differentiating between the real people and the false origin story. I think that BarrelProof understands. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:39, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Redrose64: Glad you're still around, since I want to quote what you told me in 2020 in talk page thread Requests for closure noticeboard: procedure: "Archived threads are de facto closed by the archiving process. If it was a thread that required some kind of formal decision, it really shouldn't have been left untouched for so long that the archiving bot swooped in." WhatamIDoing is now telling me, and others on the thread, re an RfC that the bot took care of on February 5, that it is not "closed". Peter Gulutzan (talk) 20:15, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

I understand that now, but I think it's strange for an RFC to remain open but quietly disappear from the list of of active RFCs. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 22:23, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

@Peter Gulutzan and BarrelProof: There are at least two bots involved here, and they have different functions.

First, there is Legobot (talk · contribs), which handles the RfC listings. When this bot detects that the first valid timestamp following a {{rfc}} tag is more than thirty days ago, it removes that {{rfc}} tag and also removes the corresponding entries from the listing pages. This is not closure, and nor is it archiving: it is delisting, no more and no less. The discussion remains open, but it is not as broadly publicised as it had been.

Second, there are ClueBot III (talk · contribs) and Lowercase sigmabot III (talk · contribs), which handle archiving of discussion pages. In this context, "to archive" means to cut one or more threads from a discussion page and paste them into a subpage which conventionally includes the word "Archive" in its name. It is this process that I refer to as a de facto closure, since it is not permitted to continue discussions on archive pages. These bots have no means for knowing if a discussion is resolved or not: they look at the time of the most recent activity in the thread, and compare that time against the archive settings at the top of the page. Some pages have archiving settings that mean that a thread might be archived after less than thirty days, and to protect against this, Legobot adds code like <!-- [[User:DoNotArchiveUntil]] 15:01, 25 April 2024 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1714057272}} just before the {{rfc}} tag when it adds the |rfcid= parameter, and leaves that code alone when it removes the {{rfc}} tag. If you come across code like that at the top of a discussion thread that has no {{rfc}} tag, that may indicate that the thread did have an {{rfc}} tag at some point in the past. But the page history should be checked to be sure - the best thing to look for is edits by Legobot. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:49, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. The only bot changes in the history are by Legobot so it wasn't archived then unarchived, and I can make no joke about RfCs pining for the fjords, assuming this is about me and BarrelProof. As I said earlier, I'm glad you're still around. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 00:23, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

This is another case where confusion has probably been caused by misuse of terminology. As the terms are defined in the Wikipedia:Requests for Comment, there is no such thing as an RfC being open or closed and you can't close an RfC. You close a discussion or end an RfC. It's normal for an RfC to end while the discussion is still open. Common sense says whoever closes a discussion should end the RfC as well, but they're technically separate events. "Close an RfC" is a slang variously used to mean end an RfC, close an RfC discussion, or both, and it's hard to know which. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 18:55, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

WP:RFCBEFORE often ignored

In my experience, a large number of RFCs are frequently started after no discussion, or extremely minimal discussion. Is there a way to make WP:RFCBEFORE more prominent somehow? Aza24 (talk) 00:07, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Some weeks ago I thought of adding a line in big text like Is your RfC really necessary? but didn't do it. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 06:50, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

A message like that would probably discourage the "wrong" editor. Thinking about the two editors who were running ~10 RFCs years ago, I'm sure that they strongly believed that their RFCs were really necessary. Other editors did not disagree with them; they were invincibly convinced that they were right; therefore, an RFC was necessary to prove that they were right. (The fact that they were frequently not proven right did not change their minds, but it did stop the edit warring.)

@Aza24, I find that complaints like this are frequently motivated from two places: One is a general, disinterested concern that the people who respond to RFCs are wasting their time by responding to such "obvious" questions. The other is a more specific concern that a particular RFC is going to end up with the "wrong" result, whereas if the rest of the community hadn't been invited to join the conversation, then the "right" answer could have prevailed. (See also the FAQ on people complaining about biased questions.) One of these concerns seems to be more common that the other. Which is yours? WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:49, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree. RfC's are helpful--especially when one or a few editors are not following the WP:RS. It's the only decent forum I know of to address a content dispute. --David Tornheim (talk) 06:15, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

I'll admit, it was prompted by JK Rowling-related talk page chaos; a discussion was taking place, and then a RFC suddenly appeared on a matter which had not even been discussed. It calls back to numerous times I've witnessed discussions talk place over a day or two, and certainly not concluded or proved stalemated—but an RFC appears anyways. Many times these RFCs are halted before a consensus arrives: a solution to me seems to make it clearer that discussion should take place first. Aza24 (talk) 06:29, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Hot-button articles tend to attract more than their share of RFCs, but I'm not sure that's always a bad thing.

I'm not sure that changing the instructions would help. Wikipedia:Nobody reads the directions, and reasonable people could disagree about whether a discussion has concluded or reached a stalemate. (For example, I tend to be a bit more optimistic about the chance of reaching a conclusion than many other editors.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:34, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Am I allowed to give my non-neutral opinion on the RfC that I started?

I started an RfC with a neutral statement. Can I give my opinion on the subject below my first statement and timestamp? ☆SuperNinja2☆ TALK! 22:20, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

You may of course make a comment on the RfC; any editor may. It is only the RfC issue summary that must be neutral; it is of course not expected that comments in response to it will be. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:31, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Why a protected page blocks me

I added references and it seems like an automatic block. How do I get this to go into RfC? OhioMD (talk) 02:51, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

You need to provide some more information about what you were trying to use as a reference if you expect others to be able to help you. URLs are usually on the blacklist for very good reasons though, so I wouldn't get your hopes up. Remsense诉 03:43, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

@OhioMD, it would help if you could tell us the website you were trying to add. It may not let you post the link, but you can spell it out as "example dot com/page.html" if you need to. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:42, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Would an RFC be okay in this situation?

There's currently a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Missing Wikipedians § Split proposal regarding a proposal to split that page. Although split proposals aren't usually advertised via RFC (to my knowledge), I find myself agreeing with Moon darker, who thought it might be worth asking if this proposal should be (in order to collect more input). In addition, as a non-article page, Wikipedia:Missing Wikipedians isn't currently being sorted into Category:Articles to be split. I'm inclined to think that, in this instance, it might be worth ignoring the rule that RfCs are not for splitting a page.

I just wanted to ask here if editors thought that adding an RFC tag to the top of the proposal would be appropriate. (As a side note, if an RFC tag is added, what would be the best topic areas to sort it into? {{rfc|proj|prop}}?)

All the best, ‍—‍a smart kitten_[meow] 15:42, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

I think this is a good case for IAR. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:46, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

@A smart kitten, I think you've picked the right topic areas to tag. Regardless of whether you tag the split proposal as an RFC (I think it's okay), the advice in Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Publicizing an RfC might be helpful. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:16, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you both for the feedback :) ‍—‍a smart kitten_[meow] 11:37, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

RfC etiquette

We do have FAQ (written by @WhatamIdoing) then we do have WP:RFC#Responding to an RfC.

I wish updating WP:RFC#Responding to an RfC further RfC etiquette which will help users to avoid common mistakes.

A) I wish to add Wikipedia:Feedback request service in section see also of WP:RFC#Responding to an RfC

B) I wish to include brief tips from WP:BLUDGEON#Improving your arguments WP:TLDR WP:AGF WP:NPA 1) Read up on the policy that governs the actions you are taking. Quote the policy in your reasoning (briefly, redacting extraneous material as needed) 2) Read how to keep your comments very brief and concise 3) It is okay to answer one or two comments that are either quoting the wrong policy or asking a question. It isn't okay to answer/ argue against every single comment that is contrary to your position. 3) Once at RfC it's for community to take the call. Main proponent and opponent take note, you don't always win in a discussion, and the point of the discussion isn't to find a winner or loser - It is to find consensus. Everyone finds themselves on the other side of consensus every now and then. Accept community decisions at RfC and move on. 3) Update "Try not to be confrontational. Be friendly and civil, and assume good faith of other editors' actions." with remember" Remember we are here for improvement in content and not personalisation of disputes, meet any impatience with patience, If you loose the track go back to the track and focus on content and resolve content issues with the help of community.

Bookku (talk) 03:29, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

This sounds like instruction creep. I don't think it will help, either. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:40, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

We can't even get every person who starts an RfC to read WP:RFCBEFORE, some even ignore WP:RFCST. So this idea will have little effect. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:34, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

As community wishes, but the perception as of now I have is as below:

True, reading everything in one go like a Phd is not humanly possible. But IMO people study policy and guidelines when confronted or suggested by multiple people in multiple instances.

I suppose you won't agree less that, we do best of ours to provide as smooth user experience as possible. While building a user manual, people would read it immediately or not is not the question, as long as, the user manual instructions are not harmful in themselves.

I suppose you would agree that WP:BLUDGEON, WP:TLDR, WP:AGF, WP:NPA too big to read at one go. The above suggested points are very brief gist essential parts of those pages intending to provide Right guidance at right time at right place. Bookku (talk) 03:14, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Signing an RfC

The instructions for creating an RfC have long stated that either ~~~~ (name and date) or ~~~~~ (date only) are acceptable ways to sign it. This has always struck me as an anomoly: what else of substance can one write on an article talk page without signing it? The only discussion I can find is from 2018 and appears to be overall in favor of requiring a name. I'm reminded of this question by a recent case where one of the main protagonists on the talk page of a contentious article refused to have their name on the RfC they created. This wouldn't be a serious issue if all RfCs strictly obeyed the neutrality requirement, but we know that isn't the case. So I'm asking you all if it is worth revisiting this question, to consider whether we want to keep the old instructions or change them. Zero^talk 14:47, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

The original instructions for RFCs required a date stamp without a name. This has some positive results: The editors responding to the question aren't immediately biased by previous interactions with the person posting the question (e.g., voting for their friends). A question can be written by multiple people without misleadingly attributing it to a single person. Also, RFC questions should be written so that people new to the discussion can't tell which 'side' started the RFC, so why put a 'biased' name on a neutral question?

My question for you is, beyond having this not-so-normal process match everyday comments, why do you want that editor's name on that RFC? Are you hoping to trigger biasing effects (e.g., "Oh, it's from that editor. Well, that's going to be hopelessly biased. I should vote against him"). WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:43, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

@Zero0000: If you really need to know who started an RfC, look at the page history. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:41, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

It can help the closer to know who framed the RfC and what outcome they wanted; but personally I tend to check the history anyway, because the question has sometimes been edited, and where that's happened, I want to know what it said when each !vote was cast. Most RfCs are signed ime.—S Marshall T/C 22:32, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't see why they should not be signed and it saves people having to look, which I would instantly do if it wasn't. Are you hoping to trigger biasing effects (e.g., "Oh, it's from that editor. Well, that's going to be hopelessly biased. I should vote against him"). Or what a great RFC, I'll vote for him? This strikes me as naivete, of course those editors familiar with that person are going to be biased to some extent and they won't need triggering at all, particularly if its a CT. Editors that don't know the person presumably won't be triggered in any event so there is no gain in not signing. I accept that a workshopped "group" RFC need not be signed but then the RFCbefore will identify that group in any case. It wouldn't even occur to me not to sign an RFC I put up. Selfstudier (talk) 23:14, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

There's another effect for signing: "I think – ugh, my friend is voting the other way. I'll just skip this one, so I don't have to publicly disagree." WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:05, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Nobody suggested that votes to RfCs can be unsigned, so I don't understand this objection. If the RfC itself is not neutral it violates the rules already. Zero^talk 01:50, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

If the RfC is neutrally worded (which it should be in the first place), I don't think the editor's name matters. Some1 (talk) 01:55, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

In the ideal situation that would be true. However, in contentious areas there is frequent disagreement over whether particular RfCs are neutral, and almost everyone would agree that many are not neutral even if they disagree on which RfCs those are. So what is fine in theory is not necessarily fine in practice. Zero^talk 04:18, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

See the first question in the FAQ at the top of this page. People claim "non-neutrality" whenever they're worried that the outcome will disagree with them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:20, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

That question and its flippant answer are embarrassing and shouldn't be here. Of course it is true that people are more likely to complain when they are on the losing side, but that doesn't mean that there is never a genuine problem with the neutrality of an RfC. Another thing I would like to see is a standardised mechanism by which an RfC can be challenged (for neutrality or any other reason) with decisions restricted to uninvolved admins. Zero^talk 04:55, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

It's actually pretty uncommon for an RFC question to be completely non-neutral. We get some complaints on this page about it, but I don't remember the last time I saw a complaint here about one that was unreasonably non-neutral; it doesn't even happen once a year. The few that are unreasonably non-neutral typically get fixed locally, and that usually happens pretty quickly. When we get complaints here, it's usually an acceptable question being challenged by someone who is "losing", and quite often who would like to install a question with the opposite bias.

When I see WP:RFCNEUTRAL getting linked in other discussions, it's likely to be an editor saying that the RFC question is okay. (WP:RFCBRIEF is a more common complaint, probably by >50%.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:53, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Few people would know to come here to complain about a specific RfC, even though the possibility is mentioned. Experienced users would assume it is not the place, just as complaints about reliability of particular sources don't go to WT:RS and complaints about personal attacks don't go to WT:NPA. So I propose that you only see a small fraction of disputes here. Most of the disputes I see never leave the page they are on unless they spill over onto a drama board like AE, AN/I or RSN. Zero^talk 06:19, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Continuing: Moreover, if someone did come here to complain about a particular RfC and saw the insulting notice at the top of the page which translates as "Came here to complain did you? Well, fuck off." they would go away. Zero^talk 13:44, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Is the (now closed) RfC over at the Israel–Hamas war article what prompted this discussion? Where editors were apparently disputing over the in/exclusion of the editor's name? If an RfC is supposedly not neutral, then that's a problem with the RfC wording itself; the editor's name not being next to the timestamp is immaterial. Some1 (talk) 03:18, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Of course all editors with a minimum of experience know how to check the page history, so it isn't a matter of hiding information in a cryptographic sense. But we should ask ourselves why we sign talk page contributions at all; after all, that information is in the page history too. A signature just places open information in a more convenient place. I'm not convinced by WhatamIdoing's focus on motivation, since for any ulterior motive for wanting a signature one can think of an ulterior motive for not wanting a signature. The case of RfCs initiated by groups is easily accommodated: just write this information at the end of the RfC. Zero^talk 01:50, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

• Comment:

Though history remains available, in RfCs with many users and too many response edits, suppose some one changes question in such subtle manner in between and goes unnoticed, finding who did and did it accidentally, inadvertently or mischievously would take more time and that will make users more angry. If new user is making mistake inadvertently rather than getting mentoring support might land being lashed out. Bookku (talk) 10:50, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

This does not seem to be a problem in practice. High-traffic RFCs are the ones most likely to notice a change to the question. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:29, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

• If the premise for not signing is that signing could introduce bias by way of prejudice directed at the OP, that would be a bad faith assumption, which is something that I thought we avoided. This would then be rather strange reasoning, in principle, to enshrine in the guidelines. Iskandar323 (talk) 01:42, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

  I don't think that's a complete statement of the rationales. Consider it from the POV of someone starting an RFC, who feels like everyone is biased against them. Should we insist that they add their name, when they believe that will result in biased responses? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:50, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

  You are arguing that editors have the right to hide information that other editors may consider relevant. Why should a right to hide trump a right to know? I think that our policies and procedures should favor openness whenever there is no serious need for secrecy. Moreover, there are plenty of times when the identity of the proposer is indeed relevant for judging the RfC: (1) if the proposer has a history of disruptive editing. (2) if the proposer is an experienced edit-warrior in the topic area. Everyone working in contentious areas knows how to spin a statement that seems neutral to the uninitiated but actually favours their pov. Zero^talk 13:35, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

  Zero, I know you feel that RfC questions should be signed, but where a RfC question is devised by several people -- or even worked up on a subpage -- do you feel it should be signed by one principal proposer, or by a handful, or by everyone who's proposed it? Or by everyone who agrees with it? What about when a question changes, because it's been improved partway through? Would we want an editor who came along later to countersign it?—S Marshall T/C 13:46, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

  I think that's a minority situation that shouldn't define the general rule. The important thing is openness. There is nothing to stop the person who types the RfC in from saying where it came from, even if it is a group of people or a subpage or whatever. However, it doesn't sound like a good idea for someone to come along later and add their name; it would look too much like a different type of !vote. Zero^talk 14:12, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

  The history page provides openness.

  The question here is why should every RFC at (for example) Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people be required to name one editor? This page isn't encouraging unsigned RFC questions; it's only providing information about how to do so if the editor(s) think that would be appropriate.

  To start hiding the information, we'd have to determine that this is never appropriate, including that:

  • if an RFC question is written by a group, it should still have one individual's name on it;
  • if I change your RFC question, it should still have your name on it; and
  • if someone posts an RFC for technical reasons or because a group seems to be interested in it, then it should have that individual's name on it instead of the people who are actually interested in the outcome;

  and, of course, that most editors think it's truly important to know who wrote the question, which doesn't exactly align with our Wikipedia:Comment on content, not on the contributor principles. In short, I don't really think there's a problem to be fixed here, even if it's occasionally surprising to some people that unsigned comments happen. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:07, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

  Nope, do what is best practice ie what everyone else usually does, sign the RFC. Selfstudier (talk) 16:08, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

  I don't think that signing other people's comments, or collectively written comments, as "my" comment, actually is the best practice. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:20, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Signing an RfC, draft #1

When an RfC begins, it's best practice for the editor who initiated or designed the RfC to sign it. Where an RfC question is the work of two or more editors, it's best practice for one or two of the lead editors to sign it. Where an RfC question changes while the RfC is in progress, it's best practice to add a changelog explaining who changed the question and when. If there's some reason why you're reluctant to sign your RfC, you could ask at the Teahouse or use {{helpme}} on your talk page to ask an experienced editor to adopt the RfC for you.

Does that accurately reflect what we're saying?—S Marshall T/C 17:20, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

I disagree with most of that: It's not actually a best practice to sign an RFC (though it is some editors' personal preference, and some of them appear to be willing to force other editors to follow their preference); the person who initiated might be different from the one who designed it, leading to confusion and disputes ("Why did you sign my name on that? You posted it!"); editors might disagree over who the "lead editors" are; it's actually bad practice to add a changelog for minor changes to the question; and if you're reluctant to sign an RFC, it might be because it's not "your" RFC in the first place (for example: every time one of the regulars on this page cuts a badly formatted or extremely long RFC down to a simple question that won't break Wikipedia:Requests for comment/All).

This adds a lot of WP:CREEP without recognizing that there are valid reasons to not sign the initial question. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:32, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Maybe. I'm trying to make sure I've fully grasped this thought before I judge it.—S Marshall T/C 17:38, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

I'd go further, I'd say if you don't want to sign it, don't put it up. If there is actually a valid reason to have an RFC, then someone willing to sign it will put it up instead. Selfstudier (talk) 17:39, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Third opinion#Instructions tells users to always sign with WP:5TILDES. They think this will reduce the initial bias from the responding editor. Do you have the same opinion about their process? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:51, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

I would suggest the opposite:

When initiating an RfC, best practice is for the editor to include only the date in their signature, omitting their name. This is done by using five tildes (~~~~~). By doing so the focus remains strictly on the content of the question, reducing the likelihood of unintentional bias influenced by the identity of the initiator. Once editors have begun responding to the RfC any significant changes should be logged, with a timestamp, immediately after the statement.

BilledMammal (talk) 18:05, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

I too am in this camp. While who initiated an RfC is a matter of record, the presentation should be that the question is by Wikipedia; it is not personal and is not owned by anyone. Note that in a regular talk page contribution, it is bad form for anyone else to edit it -- the words are personal. RfC questions are different. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 19:14, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

And if we count up all the RFCs in the last year say and see how many are signed, what do you do think that would look like? (going by my own area, nearly all of them) If that position has so much merit why doesn't the procedure just say "don't sign the RFC" Selfstudier (talk) 20:14, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

It used to. Then people wanted the option of signing their questions. Eventually, the new option became popular. Now there is a push from a couple of editors to make the most popular choice become mandatory. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:52, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

I usually sign the RFC question with five tildes, specifically so that my name doesn't appear in RFC digests and FRS notices, to avoid the pro/anti biases people mentioned above. Then, below the timestamp, usually with my vote (or if I'm not voting, just in a below-the-question comment), I'll write something like "(as proposer)" or "(as RFC initiator)" so that people know who wrote the RFC question. I feel like this splitting of the baby provides best of both worlds. Levivich (talk) 21:24, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Where an RfC question is the work of two or more editors, it's best practice for one or two of the lead editors to sign it. The problem with that is that Legobot looks for the first valid timestamp, and no further. If two people both sign with four tildes, you will get the sequence

• {{rfc}} - Statement - User 1 identfication - Timestamp 1 - User 2 identfication - Timestamp 2

in he RfC itself, but the RfC listings will only show

• Statement - User 1 identfication - Timestamp 1

the second user identification is lost. You would need to say something like Each lead editor should sign with three tildes, except the last one who should sign with four. This overcomplicates it, IMO. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 13:40, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Hmm, I've been imagining that the focus here is what's on the talk page, rather than the RFC question itself. For example, we sometimes end up with:

{{rfc}} – Brief question – Timestamp – Lengthy background explanation – User identification – Timestamp

Only the first bit is "the question" and will appear in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/All, but the editors who want to know who started it will be able to figure that out at a glance when they arrive on the talk page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:53, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Proposal to amend Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/FAQ

• Let's delete the first bullet. It's rather unhelpful and, to be quite frank, needlessly facetious.—S Marshall T/C 13:50, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

  I've used it, and I've found it helpful.

  Can you re-write it to be less facetious? The point to make is that efforts to invalidate an RFC because you think it's coming to the wrong conclusion are inappropriate, even if you dress up your concerns in wikilawyer-approved language like "it's not RFCNEUTRAL" or "it's not RFCBRIEF". WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:12, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

• Please!! Pretty please!! Zero^talk 14:17, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
• Comment, which is sort of relevant. WP:RfC says "You can also ask for help or a second opinion at WT:RfC", but when you open an editing window at WT:RfC (like I am now) you get a banner that only says "This page deals with information about the RfC process.". It is anomalous for the talk page of a policy/guideline/infopage to double as the place to complain about particular cases, rather than only to discuss the process itself. Should we have a proper noticeboard (think RSN or NPOVN or BLPN) where complaints and appeals about particular RfCs should go rather than here? Zero^talk 14:34, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

  I really don't think that adding yet another noticeboard would help anyone. It would have the effect of encouraging complaints and meta-disputes. We need less of that, not more.

  Also, even if the number of complaints were doubled, the level isn't enough to sustain a noticeboard (see the failed Wikipedia:Notability/Noticeboard). WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:17, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

  I don't agree that it is a bad thing to provide more opportunities for dispute resolution, and I don't agree that the level of complaints about RfCs is as low as you believe. Zero^talk 06:41, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

• Indeed, delete FAC 1, it assumes bad faith. Rather, you have to accept that people do actually have concerns for the reasons they say they are concerned, and not from some ulterior reason. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:50, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

  To assume bad faith is to assume that the person is trying to hurt Wikipedia. Do you really think that's saying "You're trying to hurt Wikipedia"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:03, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

  No. To assume bad faith is to assume they are making their statement of concern in bad faith, concealing their true reason/motive behind misdirection or a lie. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:54, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

  Alanscottwalker is correct. Zero^talk 03:27, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

First bullet rewrite, draft #1

*The RfC question isn't neutral!

Wikipedians are rarely swayed by a non-neutral question. They've got their own minds and will 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.

How's that?—S Marshall T/C 17:01, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

I like it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:03, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

I like it too. BilledMammal (talk) 18:06, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Me too. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 19:01, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

The problem is that there is no mechanism to change the question if the proposer doesn't agree. And the proposer is the one most likely to resist the change, especially if the non-neutrality is deliberate (which is common). Also, once people have !voted in an RfC, it is too late to change the question. We are better off removing this item altogether. Zero^talk 03:23, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Any useful information at WT:Requests for comment/FAQ should be moved to WP:RFC and then the FAQ should be deleted. We have policies, we have guidelines, we have info pages, and... the info pages have FAQs? That's too much. Levivich (talk) 03:34, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Best suggestion yet. Zero^talk 06:17, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

• I've made the edit, but I'll leave this open, to allow for the chance that this proposal to delete a bloody useful FAQ might gain consensus, although I personally very much hope it doesn't.—S Marshall T/C 16:54, 14 May 2024 (UTC)