Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment

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.