Wikipedia talk:Feedback request service

Too large

There are currently 662 editors on the RfC section of this list, requesting a total of 29,614 notifications per month, plus 46 editors with no specified limit. This is far more than the bot that processes the list can handle (it sent a total of 1,253 RfC notifications in the month of March, which isn't a perfect comparison since it was down for part of the month, but is close enough), and also is far more notifications than seems reasonable to me: there a little over 100 RfCs per month, which means that the bot would need to notify 296 editors of each RfC in order to reach the total. (For context, the bot currently notifies between 5 and 15). Some cleanup to address this problem may be in order. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:58, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Notified: Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:39, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

What's the problem here? Is Yapperbot hitting some kind of rate limit? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:10, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

It's not a rate limit, but a deliberate decision by the bot operator (who's been inactive since August 2020). I believe he explained his reasoning for doing this at Wikipedia:Feedback request service/2020 survey#Random selection. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:43, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the problem is. It sounds like editors have requested "too many" notifications and the bot op has already sensibly reduced that to a reasonable amount (because we don't actually need a hundred people notified about the same RFC), and ...the problem is where? We need to care about how many people are getting the notifications, not how many have offered to be helpful.

If you want to reduce the list, then one easy way to do that is to remove the names of anyone who hasn't edited in ~6 months, as notifications to them are presumably pointless. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:08, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

I went through the ===Biographies=== section and removed 18 names (~75 total requests). I only removed editors who hadn't made any edits since 2019 (per WP:NAVPOPS). It took about 10 minutes to review all the names in that section. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:25, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

There's a bot task currently configured to remove editors who hasn't edited in 3 or more years. That number could easily be tightened if doing so is desirable. And, the reason I started this thread was seeing various complaints about people receiving too few notices, such as User talk:Naypta/2021/March#Yapperbot's handling of WP:FRS stuff. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:33, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

I suggest considerably shortening the inactive time period. If it's set to about 6 months, then perhaps 20% of the names will be removed. That should result in the remaining 80% of editors being more likely to get a notification. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:36, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

I did the math. Removing editors who haven't edited for 6 months would remove 12,350 notifications, or a little less than half. (Other numbers, if anyone cares: 3 months would remove 16,209 RfC notifications, 1 month would remove 17,411 RfC notifications, 1 year would remove 1,771 notifications). * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:42, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Let's see how the first change goes. Maybe six months will be too short, but I definitely think there is value in reaching at least the one-year mark. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:45, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

I have found the bot's config template and boldly reduced the inactivity from 3 years to 2 years. I thought that a stepwise reduction might be helpful, to avoid having too many editors get notified the next time the bot runs. Maybe next week, we can reduce it to 1 year, and a while after that, to six months. Six months should cover all of the "normal" schedule variations (e.g., school holidays). WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:43, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

You also needed to update User:Naypta/FRS pruned/Message (which I've now done). * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:51, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:51, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

April 2021 update on the above numbers: 29,719 requests per month listed ( 105), 663 total editors ( 1), 44 users with no limit (-2), 1,066 total RfC messages sent (-187), and the bot was up the entire month. The pruning task only runs weekly on Mondays so hasn't had a chance to run yet. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:14, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

@Pppery, the bot hasn't run. I don't think these changes worked. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:29, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

No, this week's pruner run crashed while pruning Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send before it got to this page. I would be willing to do the pruning semi-automatically if that is desired, but I would recommend waiting another week first. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 13:58, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Let's just wait. That sounds easier. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:38, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Pruner ran successfully this week, removing 40 users, so I figured I should post a number update: 28,975 requests per month (-744), 624 total users (-39), 44 users with no limit (unchanged), and the bot has sent 263 FRS notices so far. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:59, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

And I've set the limit to 1 year (and updated the bot message) for the May 17 pruner run, per your above comment (next week, we can reduce it to 1 year) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:13, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:23, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Pruner ran successfully this week (except for the fact that I made a typo in the message the bot posts to removed users' talk pages), removing 67 users. Current count: 27,717 requests per month (-1,258 since last week), 44 users with no limit (unchanged), 559 total users (-65), 563 total messages set. I propose decreasing the limit to 6 months between the May 24 and 31 bot runs, thus causing the pruning to finish just as the next calendar month starts (and thus the bot resets its count of sent messages). * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:29, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Nobody's complained here, nobody's complained at WT:RFC, nobody's complained at me, I think nobody's complained at you? Then I think it's okay to take the next step.

Do you think that we should stop at six months' inactivity? WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:52, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

@Pppery, is it time to set this up? WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:04, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

I did it already * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:07, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Number update for May 2021: 15,701 requests per month (-12,016 since two weeks ago), 498 total editors (-61 since two weeks ago), 35 users with no limit (-9), bot sent 1,051 notices (-15 compared to last month). As for your question of do you think that we should stop at six months' inactivity?, I'm honestly unsure. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:10, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

There is a remedy proposed here, which can offset the lack of sufficient RfC editors. Esem0 (talk) 04:52, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

@Redrose64, Pppery, and WhatamIdoing: (i.e., all editors involved above): Despite the effected updates to the RfC lists, the problem of getting enough editors, if any, to comment can persist. Even if we stop at six months' inactivity, the problem will be compounded and still not produce a satisfactory solution. IMO, the only remedy is to compensate by guaranteeing sufficient time to receive delayed RfC responders but also other “watchers”. This can certainly ameliorate the harm caused by closing prematurely and arbitrarily discussions by an outside over-enthusiastic editor and without the benefits of the RfC service. It is much better to provide time rather than cause a false outcome via a rushed “consensus” (let us not debate any specific subject matter here). This remedy is exactly proposed at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment#Inactive RfC editors, to which you have already contributed. Some opposition may be valid if taken in isolation. However, the current problem here begs for a remedy to avoid failures of the RfC service and false WP outcomes. Such a specialized remedy should override possible minor inconvenience to an outside/uninvited editor improperly interfering with an ongoing discussion. I now believe that we all have an opportunity to arrive at a consensus (even an absolute one). This is by no means a matter of losing or winning a case for anyone, but an example to demonstrate WP proof of principles, namely, that it works using common sense, civility, and cooperation. Esem0 (talk) 06:54, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

@Esem0, when you start an RFC, all editors are invited to participate. The RFC process has multiple methods by which we encourage participation – this is perhaps the least used and least important one – but for clarity:

• People starting RFCs are not entitled to any response from anyone who is signed up for this particular notification system.
• Comments from editors who do not sign up for this particular notification system may be more valuable than the comments from editors who did sign up for it.

I did a spot-check of other closed RFCs just now. One closed after a week. Most closed after a few weeks. One was open for many months. Yours was closed after four days, which is unusual. Please don't try to re-write the rules to deal with exceptional cases. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:21, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

In other words, you believe we ought to allow arbitrary RfC closures, albeit infrequent, at the behest of any editor. This is for the sake of "don't try to re-write the rules to deal with exceptional cases". My change is only a tweak of rule #4 aiming to prevent abuse of the rules by way of a loophole either in good or even in bad faith: Not only an over-enthusiastic editor but also organized sock puppetry could take advantage of the existing weakness that can severely compromise WP principles. This overshadows all the hitherto presented minor objections. IMO, there must be a consensus on the existence of a vulnerability issue and its proposed rectification. Esem0 (talk) 04:27, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Sock puppetry is a known risk. We are generally very good at handling it when it appears (a couple of times a year). WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:41, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Can you please point to some examples (cases) whereby organized sockpuppetry has been handled well during RfC discussions in the last couple of years? Esem0 (talk) 05:28, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Another failure to supply the claimed facts after 3.5 months. Esem0 (talk) 06:02, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

That's because everyone else here knows that your attempt to reform the RfC process is doomed to fail and is refusing to engage with you. Please drop the stick. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:57, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

That's because nobody can supply the facts claimed above. Your helping hand is irrelevant but quite revealing, especially by using one more wrong premise, because Whatamidoing is not refusing to engage with me. She follows on a 50% engagement rate all along and you are not far behind. Both of you are fueling the debate in tandem. Hence, your reply is entirely false again. Be truthful. I have wanted very much to stop, but all opposing arguments are enticing and irresistible. If WP is to rely on falsehoods, I want to make it visible. To your insistence that I "drop the stick", I can equally request you to drop brandishing that stick too. Continuing this discussion makes it ever more clear where you come from. If you feel that you own this space, please let us know. Esem0 (talk) 07:15, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Sending requests to dedicated user talk subpage

I feel my user talk page to be cluttered with FRS notifications, but I want to continue receiving them. Is there a way I can send these notifications to a dedicated subpage of my user talk page? —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 07:07, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

@CX Zoom: Yes. Itcouldbepossible does this successfully, see their entries under WP:FRS#All RFCs and WP:FRS#Media and drama. These specify {{frs user|Itcouldbepossible/RFC messages|500}} and so the FRS messages go to User talk:Itcouldbepossible/RFC messages. I don't think that User:Itcouldbepossible/RFC messages needs to exist. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:24, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

@Redrose64: I thought of doing that, but, I'm afraid that the bot will eventually remove that page from the list because it would not find an active editor with the name CX Zoom/FRS/2022. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 19:29, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

And I wasn't wrong. The bot removed "Itcouldbepossible/RFC messages" (see Special:Diff/1088197704) because it couldn't find an user by that name. This time Pppery reverted it, but it may get overlooked someday. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 19:24, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

@Redrose64 Hi, just saw this message. But something I want to tell here is that, the userpage needs to exist as well. Earlier I had made a redirect of the userpage to the talk page of that page, but it didn't work. I didn't receive messages for a couple of days. Then I thought about removing the redirect and making it a page instead, and then it worked. So the page needs to exist as well. So if CX Zoom wants to get messages on his subpage, then he would have to make the userpage of the subpage as well, or, the bot won't work. But I still cannot find the reason why the bot is removing subpages off this list. Either it should find the actual user, and see if the user is active or not, or it should not remove subpages from the list. Pppery said that he has mailed to the bot owner, but it seems that the owner is not that active. Lets see what he says. Best, Itcouldbepossible^Talk 02:25, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Religion and philosophy

There is a category religion and philosophy, and a category philosophy and religion. Why is it so? Morgan Leigh | Talk 03:25, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

@Morgan Leigh: They're in different sections - the first one is for Requests for comment, the second is for Good article nominations. BTW, this edit removed another user besides yourself. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:45, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for this answer and thank you so much for noticing that mistake and fixing it. Morgan Leigh | Talk 00:27, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Alternative for lighter-weight requests?

Is there a similar way to get 2-5 other editors pinged about a request for cleanup help about an article? Is it appropriate to formulate something that simple as an RfC, in order to use FRS? – SJ  20:04, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

@Sj: You should hold a normal discussion on the talk page of the article, and if you need more eyes, you may drop a neutrally-worded note on the talk pages of relevant WikiProjects. Templates such as {{fyi}} and {{subst:please see}} may be used for this. RfC is a process of last resort, not something to be used lightly. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:06, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

That was my gut feeling also. Thanks, {{please see}} is partly what I was looking for. But hoping there was a service like FRS for cases where it's not obvious where to place such a template that would reach interested people. E.g. say I run across an orphan with few sources and few views; it's been around for a long time but it's past editors are no longer active; I'm considering a bold change like a redirect [though it's not clear where to] and want a sanity check. Basically, something like {{help me}} but for established editors to put on articles to reach others who've opted into to seeing such pings. 😅 – SJ  21:39, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Maintaining Yapperbot

Yapperbot needs to be migrated off of GridEngine, which has been shut off. This will be easier now than later. See T320195 – SJ  01:56, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

@Sj, the bot has started working again. You might be interested in User talk:Naypta#Yapperbot is down, we're thinking about forking.

Also, if anyone's interested in quantifying the effect of the FRS, we have a nice little natural experiment. Just compare the total number of responses to RFCs that were listed on the pages on 1 December 2023 vs 1 January 2023 (or whichever dates you prefer). Counting the number of comments unique editors to a ==Section== is easy with DiscussionTools (in Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-betafeatures if it's not already on for your account). WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:46, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

No question that this is part of the lifeblood of the network; we should really be thinking about how to mroe easily integrate this tool, and a family of things like it, as a natural collaborative feature (of "MediaWiki for communities?") and not just a bespoke tool running on a few Wikipedias. – SJ  00:17, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Integration probably means putting it in Echo/Notifications. This would probably increase the reach (setting it to opt-out after n edits would bring in a steady supply of commenters) but cost the "happened to see this on someone else's talk page" serendipity.

As for how to pick the editors who receive a given notification, imagine something like @Nettrom's SuggestBot to route RFCs to potentially interested editors, or maybe using the articletopic: feature on Search to produce larger groupings (there are 64 topics) that is consistent across wikis (pinging EBernhardson (WMF) to tell me whether that's vaguely feasible). A third option would be manual classification; that would probably require a new Special: page. Or MusikAnimal (WMF) and his team could end up with another bot that they have to maintain forever. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:29, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

RM subscription?

I’m surprised there isn’t one yet and I would love it. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 14:49, 26 April 2024 (UTC)