Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment

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

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

WT:RFC

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

view · edit

Frequently asked questions

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

Archives

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

Sure, I would move it there. LuffyDe (talk) 22:34, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

+1 agree to the revert. Folks can always debate appropriateness of an RFC. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 16:25, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

Looking at the precipitating event:

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]