Meta tags:
Headings (most frequently used words):
rfc, for, wikipedia, talk, at, on, question, process, the, of, requests, comment, contents, bad, close, wikiproject, classical, music, amending, project, guidelines, infoboxes, did, do, it, right, llm, problems, about, tags, framing, threshold, undue, weight, and, possible, promotional, content, in, byzantine, empire, script, opening, editor, should, be, used, controversial, proposed, merges, miscellaneous, pages, faq, top, this, page,
Text of the page (most frequently used words):
the (452), that (173), and (151), you (119), talk (118), rfc (116), 2026 (90), utc (90), reply (89), not (78), for (69), this (66), page (65), are (65), #should (57), have (56), there (55), with (53), wikipedia (46), august (46), can (45), about (44), discussion (44), they (42), article (42), consensus (41), think (39), but (36), editors (35), wikiproject (34), dispute (33), question (33), july (33), what (32), comment (31), how (31), was (29), don (29), people (29), whatamidoing (29), one (27), would (26), tag (26), any (26), because (26), comments (26), their (26), faq (25), group (25), just (24), time (24), like (23), edit (23), essay (23), then (23), all (23), other (22), say (22), your (22), which (22), has (22), rfcs (22), pages (21), may (19), editor (19), change (19), advice (19), june (19), polygnotus (18), opinions (18), whether (18), project (18), problem (17), opinion (17), its (17), own (17), who (17), see (17), community (17), policy (16), get (16), tags (16), wikiprojects (16), from (15), someone (15), been (15), such (15), over (15), more (14), want (14), here (14), used (14), neutral (14), ago (14), sources (14), guidelines (14), something (13), user (13), view (12), text (12), non (12), when (12), isn (12), statements (12), latest (12), might (12), right (12), apple (12), agree (11), resolution (11), could (11), also (11), does (11), questions (11), content (11), why (11), will (11), however (11), out (10), actually (10), understand (10), else (10), cannot (10), new (10), without (10), doesn (10), them (10), marshall (10), specific (10), long (10), many (10), than (10), point (10), some (10), under (9), most (9), either (9), template (9), person (9), where (9), everyone (9), know (9), please (9), close (9), only (9), case (9), process (9), says (9), even (9), usually (9), members (9), use (8), create (8), dw31415 (8), based (8), need (8), better (8), good (8), another (8), old (8), asking (8), those (8), note (8), rather (8), including (8), did (8), days (8), proposed (8), changes (8), same (8), games (8), write (8), disputes (8), within (8), financial (8), requests (7), example (7), work (7), very (7), official (7), anyone (7), giraffedata (7), line (7), included (7), section (7), well (7), made (7), aren (7), top (7), current (7), yes (7), clear (7), issue (7), prior (7), main (7), remove (7), weight (7), space (7), infobox (7), infoboxes (7), 4meter4 (7), add (6), topic (6), contents (6), make (6), having (6), fact (6), being (6), explain (6), straw (6), waste (6), start (6), actual (6), presume (6), removing (6), few (6), pov (6), disputed (6), discussed (6), problems (6), others (6), started (6), help (6), personal (6), proposal (6), idea (6), end (6), fix (6), were (6), original (6), ask (6), two (6), name (6), platforms (6), assassination (6), tagging (6), itself (6), involved (6), move (6), express (6), bankruptcy (6), freespeech (6), read (6), feb (6), 2005 (6), summary (6), table (5), last (5), possible (5), shouldn (5), generally (5), never (5), appropriate (5), rules (5), allowed (5), improve (5), sense (5), arguments (5), role (5), every (5), man (5), bryan (5), henderson (5), didn (5), always (5), aware (5), almost (5), fixed (5), these (5), again (5), let (5), closed (5), sidebar (5), trying (5), part (5), opposite (5), put (5), contains (5), link (5), saying (5), month (5), stephenmacky1 (5), into (5), wouldn (5), required (5), future (5), early (5), someonedreaming (5), among (5), sentence (5), much (5), byzantine (5), way (5), reliable (5), promotional (5), policies (5), articles (5), too (5), quotations (5), needed (5), llm (5), supposed (5), classical (5), music (5), views (5), formal (5), guideline (5), thing (5), speech (5), wider (5), 2021 (5), search (4), statement (4), apply (4), using (4), missed (4), disagree (4), doing (4), sometimes (4), rule (4), userspace (4), found (4), asked (4), assume (4), answer (4), especially (4), though (4), lot (4), side (4), reason (4), hasn (4), yet (4), haven (4), brief (4), script (4), options (4), belongs (4), relevant (4), had (4), compromise (4), while (4), chose (4), multiple (4), matter (4), discussions (4), wants (4), already (4), history (4), archives (4), consider (4), closing (4), myself (4), short (4), opening (4), open (4), come (4), after (4), groups (4), language (4), ancestries (4), separate (4), option (4), languages (4), changed (4), bob (4), game (4), violate (4), first (4), undue (4), outside (4), represent (4), longer (4), resolve (4), discussing (4), nobody (4), feels (4), added (4), issues (4), list (4), claims (4), weigh (4), find (4), force (4), conflict (4), down (4), protected (4), believe (4), include (4), each (4), 2007 (4), bot (4), hide (4), available (3), random (3), maybe (3), done (3), things (3), both (3), parties (3), important (3), subpage (3), moved (3), exactly (3), least (3), tagged (3), illusion (3), thin (3), air (3), thinking (3), makes (3), stated (3), considered (3), entire (3), arguing (3), thinks (3), faith (3), position (3), wikipedian (3), try (3), everything (3), unless (3), sure (3), simply (3), existence (3), normally (3), information (3), making (3), phrasing (3), allowing (3), ownership (3), description (3), looks (3), quite (3), below (3), valid (3), now (3), knows (3), number (3), wrong (3), removed (3), must (3), true (3), follow (3), neither (3), post (3), appears (3), join (3), controversial (3), specifically (3), interested (3), file (3), account (3), templates (3), 2015 (3), banned (3), occurred (3), instead (3), defeat (3), rfcbefore (3), similar (3), next (3), billedmammal (3), 2013 (3), indigenous (3), greek (3), suggest (3), listing (3), minor (3), mostly (3), times (3), empire (3), look (3), coffeeurbanite (3), mentioning (3), give (3), whichever (3), examples (3), selected (3), prominence (3), appearance (3), threshold (3), active (3), framing (3), deal (3), although (3), maintenance (3), state (3), ideas (3), against (3), said (3), contribs (3), ____ (3), robert (3), mcclenon (3), since (3), brink (3), verge (3), secondary (3), sort (3), words (3), mevsherd (3), small (3), minority (3), gets (3), equally (3), particular (3), anything (3), place (3), whole (3), leave (3), encouraged (3), certain (3), area (3), viewpoint (3), suppress (3), viewpoints (3), editorial (3), general (3), essays (3), 2010 (3), deletion (3), free (3), result (3), individual (3), 2006 (3), tools (3), toggle (2), contact (2), disclaimers (2), privacy (2), additional (2), terms (2), attribution (2), https (2), org (2), index (2), php (2), title (2), oldid (2), grid (2), faqs (2), particularly (2), once (2), conversation (2), difficult (2), seem (2), belong (2), somewhere (2), introduce (2), persons (2), unofficial (2), probably (2), basically (2), experience (2), consenting (2), answers (2), frequently (2), happened (2), reject (2), system (2), establishing (2), posting (2), trick (2), engaging (2), debate (2), presuming (2), difference (2), between (2), practice (2), exist (2), reduce (2), possibility (2), continued (2), factual (2), errors (2), face (2), ability (2), big (2), going (2), reference (2), editing (2), yeah (2), our (2), shows (2), recent (2), edits (2), less (2), wrote (2), situation (2), giving (2), able (2), she (2), telling (2), explained (2), badly (2), wasn (2), floor (2), violating (2), support (2), incorrect (2), previous (2), flippant (2), wanted (2), editsummary (2), refers (2), back (2), went (2), agreed (2), three (2), wikipedians (2), thanks (2), minutes (2), merges (2), miscellaneous (2), figure (2), source (2), useful (2), responses (2), correctly (2), seems (2), input (2), mentioned (2), lack (2), neutrality (2), present (2), perhaps (2), requirement (2), nothing (2), ending (2), opened (2), admit (2), approach (2), rfcend (2), exceptions (2), thought (2), rose64 (2), red (2), quoted (2), basic (2), outlined (2), permission (2), legobot (2), run (2), automatically (2), age (2), votes (2), completely (2), created (2), influence (2), century (2), weren (2), whereas (2), appear (2), linguistic (2), hellenization (2), asia (2), whose (2), inhabitants (2), abandoned (2), widget (2), alice (2), called (2), popular (2), ever (2), mention (2), taking (2), above (2), receive (2), subject (2), npov (2), concerns (2), playing (2), looking (2), remain (2), resolved (2), utterly (2), permanent (2), cost (2), wide (2), underlying (2), necessary (2), detailed (2), direct (2), compared (2), couple (2), glance (2), contain (2), type (2), past (2), towards (2), satisfy (2), discuss (2), usage (2), special (2), addressed (2), really (2), request (2), significant (2), seen (2), per (2), spent (2), improving (2), helpful (2), seeing (2), bluethricecreamman (2), reform (2), take (2), actions (2), handed (2), clearly (2), primary (2), means (2), interpretation (2), ways (2), avoid (2), aquillion (2), imminent (2), claim (2), recommend (2), power (2), political (2), control (2), informal (2), together (2), trouble (2), friends (2), dislike (2), student (2), sit (2), different (2), collective (2), recommendations (2), permitted (2), wording (2), highly (2), treated (2), enforcing (2), private (2), set (2), seek (2), before (2), defined (2), interest (2), member (2), left (2), constitution (2), beland (2), internally (2), dictate (2), regardless (2), suppression (2), got (2), collectively (2), forcing (2), profess (2), willingly (2), limits (2), discouraged (2), links (2), outcome (2), circumstances (2), acceptable (2), during (2), nor (2), prohibited (2), parts (2), through (2), accept (2), organizations (2), external (2), bad (2), amending (2), 2023 (2), november (2), april (2), 2020 (2), 2018 (2), october (2), 2016 (2), january (2), 2012 (2), 2009 (2), jan (2), dec (2), oct (2), sep (2), 2004 (2), effort (2), participate (2), tasks (2), depending (2), rarely (2), day (2), officially (2), participants (2), binding (2), off (2), formatting (2), learn (2), related (2), upload (2), log (2), donate (2), menu (2), mobile, cookie, statistics, developers, code, conduct, legal, safety, contacts, site, registered, trademark, profit, organization, wikimedia, foundation, inc, creative, commons, sharealike, license, rendered, parsoid, edited, category, retrieved, wikipedia_talk, requests_for_comment, 1370537887, reachable, elsewhere, mind, spelling, yup, gimme, sec, prefer, normal, wherein, thats, extraordinary, writ, introduced, exclusively, plays, world, asks, naked, containing, supposedly, speaking, debating, men, knowing, twice, indicate, takes, energy, easy, draw, attention, believing, practicality, alternative, allows, base, slightly, commented, exists, falling, excluded, hoaxes, typos, believes, challenge, presumed, objection, skip, ingermane, hand, shades, violation, standard, claimed, dude, wasting, rehash, hash, procedural, guys, installed, unnecessary, saves, top5, convenient, keep, eye, impasse, sufficient, size, reached, expensive, rfctracker, brd, answered, responded, interesting, consistently, refuse, awkward, repeatedly, undoing, improvements, summarily, delist, approve, police, god, misinterpreted, assuming, respectively, thoughts, label, header, users, object, war, contradicts, objected, inappropriate, apologies, missing, tired, still, obvious, flippancy, understood, false, belief, solved, ones, intended, provide, extra, explanation, clue, unclear, irrelevant, revert, invited, favifake, village, pump, merge, nominations, mfd, requested, justified, honest, misunderstanding, attitude, starts, purely, practical, unlikely, course, starting, suspected, impose, collapsed, yours, spam, attack, escalates, further, report, huh, collapsing, accounts, ips, proposals, far, checked, behind, considering, years, hard, connection, ivo, andrić, clean, ani, clarity, refusing, comply, demand, ignore, resolving, davidbrownid, counts, withdrawn, poster, whenever, happens, advantages, contrast, furthermore, okay, needs, restore, boxed, restored, straight, ought, visible, replied, changing, avoided, redact, posts, tpo, central, lists, ends, manually, pointed, proceeding, withdrew, creating, proper, procedure, feel, retained, later, additions, messing, vladimir, lenin, appeal, horrocks, geoffrey, 208, anatolian, plateau, inland, begun, dominant, culture, alexander, conquests, descendants, peoples, lycians, pamphylians, sidetians, isaurians, pisidians, lycaonians, carians, lydians, phrygians, cappadocians, immigrant, celts, goths, jews, persians, fairly, hellenized, 6th, 978, 1118785157, isbn, speakers, references, nudge, bit, vague, existing, pretty, enough, _____, blank, stamp, breadandhumus, various, lydian, carian, phrygian, isaurian, pisidian, lycaonian, lycian, favor, regarding, inclusion, requires, occasionally, surprises, literally, solve, digging, noes, product, keeps, alchemy, iconic, chris, celebrities, described, addition, thank, respond, brilliantly, commercial, illustrate, locus, closer, order, sentences, play, starter, major, glanced, notion, promotionalism, exceeds, typical, single, appreciate, feedback, adding, raise, focuses, skipping, came, via, nature, solo, evidence, intractable, semi, desperate, til, happy, live, justify, high, themselves, causing, strife, modern, head, deserve, ideal, sound, easily, settle, detail, length, jfk, fas, 20th, assassinations, heads, compare, suspect, immediate, principles, dealt, marshal, focus, away, improvement, whoever, degrade, indicated, family, warn, reader, disapprove, badge, shame, doc, waid, genuine, written, preferable, realize, earlier, overlooks, common, eliminate, willing, moot, fixing, preceding, unsigned, adds, ___, removes, ugly, unreasonable, stub, lead, expand, blueboar, william, mckinley, talaat, pasha, arrest, ngo, dinh, diem, john, kennedy, park, chung, hee, agreeing, fights, ideally, converted, ready, prepare, flagged, moderated, noticeboard, needing, workshopped, indeffed, consecutive, fail, due, extensive, guidance, writing, repeating, prohibition, behavior, generated, plan, hopelessly, compromised, demonstrated, salvage, failing, nollm, antioch, international, movement, churches, life, impact, local, sets, latter, reads, scare, quotes, juxtaposition, slide, skeptical, privileges, accurate, mere, depends, reasonably, perform, analysis, assumed, power_mac_g4_cube, diff, 1362544310, interface, includes, mac, cube, david, fuchs, modeling, thereof, protect, standing, determine, essentially, affirm, discounted, factionalism, counter, expressing, voice, membership, conveys, degree, subpages, turn, strenuously, advise, discard, argument, collaborate, aspect, faction, push, interpretations, odds, tell, location, tracking, activities, school, lunch, room, around, assigned, seating, works, eats, lunches, insist, soon, leaving, unfortunate, alone, spend, whom, entirely, volunteers, namespace, material, omissions, superprotect, stop, disrupting, servers, attorney, expertise, profits, board, measures, forth, separation, notbluesky, bluesky, wheelwar, letters, petitions, proposing, relatively, distinct, opportunity, according, speak, individuals, unite, battleground, owns, perfect, liberty, draft, instructional, brought, therefore, systematically, precedence, immediately, reverting, unsuspecting, michaelmaggs, hidden, explicitly, advance, exclusive, enforce, call, info, box, design, wishes, themself, perfectly, entitled, typically, bother, sounds, merely, status, event, argues, fear, complaint, misunderstandings, raised, objections, step, rest, paragraph, versions, semantics, little, abuse, author, totally, enforceable, reflect, measure, defend, incursions, rename, word, fine, stand, standpoint, intent, matters, rapidly, badrfc, explaining, lol, looked, fairness, relfect, given, expressed, suppressed, forcibly, fair, spaces, forming, reflecting, ethically, choice, foster, compliant, spirit, concern, removal, emphasis, tone, meaning, etc, recognize, discourage, application, comes, altering, formulate, meant, tool, published, reflective, public, large, unlike, adivce, tied, scenario, hates, contradicting, ordinary, context, forced, directly, assert, mos, infoboxuse, composers, self, exempt, applies, except, miscellany, misuse, mean, uses, misuses, ban, mess, oppose, principle, 5p4, welcomed, additionally, sorts, address, endless, supply, noticed, points, arbcom, determined, council, guide, happening, btw, classification, defends, share, usual, prevents, clarification, posted, warrants, outright, recommended, providing, linked, concerned, perceive, endorse, serious, ethics, organized, interests, mini, form, act, provided, bounds, conflicting, tantamount, suppressing, violates, opposing, effect, unethical, internal, setting, employer, coming, union, ethical, fundamental, freedom, topics, inactive, archived, lowercase, sigmabot, iii, 2008, jun, archive, scope, collaborative, practices, visit, require, rating, scale, following, assessment, respondents, varies, amount, higher, lower, technical, unusual, five, range, zero, several, hundred, 2024, prove, hold, second, soundly, rejected, proponents, grace, plausibly, sides, inherently, effective, determining, holds, withdraw, winning, advised, week, vote, substantially, appearing, copy, plus, timestamp, simplified, adjust, shorten, loyal, opposition, swayed, minds, conclusions, grounds, halt, participating, relevance, hours, alert, apparently, running, certainly, message, bottom, owner, turned, getting, listed, notices, shortcut, welcoming, newcomers, attacks, polite, welcome, purposes, encyclopedia, projects, printable, version, download, pdf, print, export, switch, legacy, parser, shortened, url, english, supported, portal, contribute, events, navigation, jump,
Text of the page (random words):
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 for however long the consensus holds 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 there was an rfc a long time ago but we re doing something different now do we have to hold a second rfc to officially over rule the old rfc no consensus can change and an rfc is not required to prove that the community s consensus has changed however if you have a dispute about what the current consensus is then a new rfc is one way to resolve that dispute how many rfcs are there as of 2024 there are usually about two rfcs started each day before 2021 there were about three new rfcs each day how many people comment in rfcs the number of respondents varies depending on the subject area and the amount of effort needed to answer the question e g higher for popular articles lower for highly technical questions it s not unusual to see about five to 20 people participate in a discussion with a possible range from zero responses to rarely several hundred this project page does not require a rating on wikipedia s content assessment scale it is of interest to the following wikiprojects dispute resolution this page is within the scope of wikiproject dispute resolution a collaborative effort to improve dispute resolution practices on wikipedia if you would like to participate please visit the project page where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks dispute resolution wikipedia wikiproject dispute resolution template wikiproject dispute resolution dispute resolution archives for why rfc was created see dispute resolution archive 1 requests for comment feb 2004 feb 2004 may 2005 may 2005 sep 2005 sep 2005 oct 2005 oct 2005 may 2006 may 2006 dec 2006 jan 2007 jun 2007 july 2007 dec 2007 jan 2008 feb 2009 feb 2009 feb 2010 feb 2010 january 2012 january 2012 may 2013 may 2013 august 2015 august 2015 october 2016 october 2016 june 2018 june 2018 june 2020 june 2020 april 2021 april 2021 november 2021 november 2021 may 2023 june 2023 future this page has archives topics inactive for 40 days are automatically archived 1 or more at a time by lowercase sigmabot iii bad close at wikipedia talk wikiproject classical music rfc amending project guidelines on infoboxes edit latest comment 1 month ago 17 comments 5 people in discussion i am very much concerned with the close done by beland at this rfc not only do i not perceive there to be a clear consensus to endorse the proposed change but i have serious concerns about the ethics of allowing rfcs to dictate a wikiproject s opinions wikiprojects are organized groups of editor with collective editing interests they are mini organizations within the community that have a right to form opinions and collectively act on those opinions provided they are within the bounds of wider guidelines the issue i see here is that external editors not members of that wikiproject chose to force a change in that wikiproject s editorial opinion in an area not conflicting with wider policy that is tantamount to suppressing a minority view which violates wp freespeech policy external editors don t have the right to suppress opposing opinions which is what in effect this rfc close did that is unethical if the wikiproject wants to change their own guideline they can do so internally with its active project members having an internal wp consensus discussion non members don t get a say in setting a wikiproject s guidelines because wikiprojects are organizations within wikipedia that have a right to their opinions this would be like an employer coming in and telling a union what its policies are it s not ethical this gets down to a fundamental freedom of speech issue wikiprojects as a group have protected speech 4meter4 talk 16 40 19 june 2026 utc reply have you raised your objections in beland s talk page that s the next step dw31415 talk 16 58 19 june 2026 utc reply i left a note on their talk page about this discussion at the time i posted here i think this warrants a wider view though because this issue could come up again at a future rfc i think the rfc page itself could say outright that rfcs can t be used to change wikiproject guidelines or opinions because wikiprojects are protected under wp freespeech policy and have a right to make their own recommended guidelines providing they don t conflict with wider policy pages outside editors who are not project members shouldn t be allowed to come in and suppress the editorial viewpoints of wikiprojects they are not involved with 4meter4 talk 17 16 19 june 2026 utc reply i suggest that you go read the free speech essay not policy that you just linked to i do not think it says what you think it says whatamidoing talk 17 22 19 june 2026 utc reply a discussion is already happening at wikipedia talk wikiproject classical music close clarification btw you can t have a wikiproject guideline because the policy on wp guidelines does not accept the idea that there can be a guideline that belongs to a group of editors rather than to the whole community it s a wikiproject advice page this classification both defends the group s right to share their opinion within the usual limits that we would apply to an essay and prevents the group from enforcing their opinion because it s just an essay 4meter4 you may be interested in seeing wikipedia wikiproject council guide advice pages but one interpretation of the proposal is a minor change infoboxes are neither required nor prohibited for any article whether to include an infobox which infobox to include and which parts of the infobox to use is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article infoboxes are neither required nor prohibited for any article if there is a dispute over whether to include an infobox which infobox to include or which parts of the infobox to use it should be resolved through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article it s not clear to me whether the main point of the rfc was to remove the rest of the paragraph but i don t see any significant difference between these two versions whatamidoing talk 17 20 19 june 2026 utc reply well advice page then the semantics matter little here the point is that outside editors don t get to change wikiproject advice pages and this was an abuse of rfc process wikiprojects have a right to author their own advice pages note that wikiproject advice pages are totally not enforceable and are basically an essay space for wikiprojects if an editor wants to change the advice page then they should join the wikiproject and get involved internally if an advice page is supposed to represent the opinions of a group that advice page better reflect the actual opinions of the editors in that group you don t get to dictate the official position of a wikiproject advice pages are supposed to be a measure of what the editors in that project think not what editors outside the project think 4meter4 talk 17 28 19 june 2026 utc reply and the op for the rfc was banned by arbcom last month over infoboxes so there s an endless supply of problems with this particular rfc you may have noticed that i made the same points myself during the rfc though the op wasn t banned at that point but there are circumstances in which an rfc would be welcomed by a wikiproject or could be helpful additionally just like some essays aren t acceptable to the community some sorts of advice pages wouldn t be acceptable and an rfc is one of the ways to address that the end result is that i think we can t actually say in the rfc page itself that rfcs can t be used to change wikiproject pages because they can be under certain circumstances one thing you could do to defend the wikiproject against future incursions is to rename wikipedia wikiproject classical music guidelines to something that doesn t use the word guidelines editors might be less interested in the contents of a page that doesn t use the same language as the wikipedia policies and guidelines whatamidoing talk 17 41 19 june 2026 utc reply i d be fine with recommendations regardless i stand by my standpoint that rfcs can t change wikiproject pages with the intent of viewpoint suppression this was a clear case of a viewpoint suppression rfc wp freespeech matters and this rfc should have been closed rapidly as a badrfc 4meter4 talk 17 47 19 june 2026 utc reply you haven t read wp freespeech yet have you it s an essay explaining why the wikipedia community can suppress your view any time we want without violating the us constitution whatamidoing talk 17 51 19 june 2026 utc reply lol got me there it s been a while since i looked at that page then let s get down to basic fairness if an advice page is supposed to relfect the viewpoints of the members of a given project but the viewpoints expressed have been suppressed and forcibly changed is that fair i don t think it is maybe you are ok with that i m not if this were a policy page or an official guideline page have at it everyone gets a say in those spaces but in this case we have editors collectively forming an editorial opinion reflecting the viewpoint of a specifically defined group i can t see how forcing that group to profess advice they didn t willingly agree to is ethically a good choice to foster a community that is compliant with the spirit of wp 5p4 4meter4 talk 18 01 19 june 2026 utc reply i believe that if you read my comments in the rfc oppose on principle because a wikiproject advice page should be treated like a user essay and that means that other editors shouldn t mess with it but are free to write their own essays to disagree with it you would see that i agree with you on that point but just because this one rfc looks like a misuse to me doesn t mean that all uses of rfcs are misuses you are asking us to ban all rfcs because there was just one 1 problem also i don t think that this is a case of forcing that group to profess advice they didn t willingly agree to isn t the main concern removing words whatamidoing talk 19 09 19 june 2026 utc reply removal of words changes emphasis tone meaning etc that should be done by the members of the project regardless i am asking for the rfc page to recognize its limits or at least discourage its application when it comes to altering opinion pages at wikiprojects its one thing to start an rfc to formulate a wp consensus on a wider policy page or even any page in article space it s another thing to change opinion pages meant to represent the opinions of a specific group of editors it sort of like how its discouraged to edit another editor s user space in general i think the rfc tool shouldn t be used on opinion pages at all if they are published by a specific group that isn t reflective of the wikipedia public at large unlike general essays wikiproject adivce pages are opinions tied to a specific group i can t think of a scenario or example of an rfc where that has been necessary and appropriate can you if so link that rfc here 4meter4 talk 19 22 19 june 2026 utc reply it is discouraged to edit in another editor s user space but an rfc can be used to force a change to someone s user page or to a user essay just like wikipedia miscellany for deletion can be used to force the deletion of such a page why should a group of self selected editors be exempt from a process that applies to everyone and everything else and do you really want to leave the community with no option except deletion the most relevant rfc in this context is 2010 wikipedia talk wikiproject composers infoboxes rfc in which the wikiproject was forced to change their advice so that it didn t directly conflict with mos infoboxuse and assert wp ownership of their articles note that there s no requirement for the group to say anything at all about infoboxes if the group hates it they can remove the whole thing the outcome that s not available is contradicting the ordinary rules we don t ever want editors to find wikiproject example advice and read do x when the official community wide guidelines say don t do x if you would like to look for past rfcs then you might find the long list of rfcs in user billedmammal list of rfcs to be useful note that the links take you to the page where it happened but almost never to the rfc itself whatamidoing talk 20 14 19 june 2026 utc reply i fear that this complaint is based on multiple misunderstandings 1 there is no such thing as protected speech under wp freespeech policy protected speech sounds like something one might find under the us constitution whereas wp freespeech is merely a user essay the personal opinion of the editor who wrote it and has no formal status within wikipedia in any event it argues against your position 2 wikiprojects do not have members in the sense of a defined closed group of editors who have the exclusive power to set up and enforce private rules that you call info box policy wikiprojects are by design open and any editor who has an interest and wishes to consider themself to be a member is perfectly entitled to express a view whether or not they have left their name on the project page i would consider myself to be an informal member of a number of wikiprojects including that one although i typically don t bother to put my name down 3 wikiprojects are at perfect liberty to create pages of recommendations and many of them do what they are not permitted to do is to draf...
|
