Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment
| ← Previous revision | Revision as of 22:07, 22 April 2026 | ||
| Line 690: | Line 690: | ||
:@Seraphimblade shut down [[Talk:Banksy#RfC: Inclusion of Banksy's real name in the lead]] for being non-neutral. The question was: "Should the lead section of the [[Banksy]] article be updated to include the name "Robbie Gunningham" as the [https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/global-art-banksy/ identified individual behind the pseudonym], as reported by Reuters and other high-quality reliable sources?", followed by a list of reasons to !vote yes, which should have been omitted from the question itself. Again, this could have been solved by copy/pasting the timestamp after the first line. |
:@Seraphimblade shut down [[Talk:Banksy#RfC: Inclusion of Banksy's real name in the lead]] for being non-neutral. The question was: "Should the lead section of the [[Banksy]] article be updated to include the name "Robbie Gunningham" as the [https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/global-art-banksy/ identified individual behind the pseudonym], as reported by Reuters and other high-quality reliable sources?", followed by a list of reasons to !vote yes, which should have been omitted from the question itself. Again, this could have been solved by copy/pasting the timestamp after the first line. |
||
:Overall, the pattern I'm seeing is more rejection of RFCs (compared to just a few years ago) over "technicalities" that could be easily fixed. Also, though it isn't obvious from these examples, it's often the same few people doing this (i.e., either complaining about the RFC being opened or directly shutting it down). Their higher-than-average standards for question neutrality, in particular, are being imposed on the whole community, and I don't see any evidence that it's advancing the goal of resolving disputes. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 21:46, 22 April 2026 (UTC) |
:Overall, the pattern I'm seeing is more rejection of RFCs (compared to just a few years ago) over "technicalities" that could be easily fixed. Also, though it isn't obvious from these examples, it's often the same few people doing this (i.e., either complaining about the RFC being opened or directly shutting it down). Their higher-than-average standards for question neutrality, in particular, are being imposed on the whole community, and I don't see any evidence that it's advancing the goal of resolving disputes. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 21:46, 22 April 2026 (UTC) |
||
::I agree that’s the wrong way to go about it, should be more tactful. Tbh I think a neutral question is v important (moreso for CTOPs/hot disputes), partly because a non-neutral question/framing does affect people's responses in a way that jeopardises the whole exercise and risks wasting community time, partly because it jilts the editors on the other side of the dispute by creating a sense of unfairness that raises the heat, harming collaboration [[User:Kowal2701|Kowal2701]] ([[User talk:Kowal2701|talk]], [[Special:Contributions/Kowal2701|contribs]]) 22:06, 22 April 2026 (UTC) |
::I agree that’s the wrong way to go about it, should be more tactful. Tbh I think a neutral question is v important (moreso for CTOPs/hot disputes), partly because a non-neutral question/framing does affect people's responses in a way that jeopardises the whole exercise and risks wasting community time, partly because it jilts the editors on the other side of the dispute by creating a sense of unfairness that raises the heat and invites ABF, harming collaboration [[User:Kowal2701|Kowal2701]] ([[User talk:Kowal2701|talk]], [[Special:Contributions/Kowal2701|contribs]]) 22:06, 22 April 2026 (UTC) |
||
=== Break === |
=== Break === |
||
