Wikipedia talk:Feedback request service/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Is there an unlimited option?

If one wished to be notified about all RFCs on a particular topic, is there a way of either not specifying a limit? Or will just having a very high limit like 15 practically do the job? —Tom Morris (talk) 22:41, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

You're not going to get notified of all the RFCs because the comment request service is designed to be a round robin to only selectively let you know about RFCs. If you want learn about all of them, put the relevant RFC page on your watchlist. harej 03:16, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

How it works

I've listed my name here. Will I be contacted, say, on March 1st, by a bot asking me to join in a randomly selected RfC? Bob the WikipediaN (talk • contribs) 00:36, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

The service will start when it starts. It will work as a sort of round-robin; one day, you will have a note left on your talk page, asking you to participate in an RFC. You have the option to say no, and letting the bot know of that decision will let it contact someone else. harej 00:59, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

When does it start?

So, when do we start receiving invitations to comment on discussions? Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:26, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Depends on how my life turns out. I had CRS implemented, but then people started demanding different things so I then agreed to rewrite it. I never got around to that nor do I really have the time to do it right now. So I'm postponing implementation. However, I am indeed encouraged by the large number of people who have signed up! harej 22:11, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Looks like this service has generated a lot of interest. Would be shame if all these signups get stood up now.. Any idea of what kind of timeframe we're looking at for this to be implemented? Maybe someone else can take up the task? -- Ϫ 21:55, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

It's kind of awesome

So many people have signed up! I think it's high time I actually implemented this feature, don't ya think? harej 00:28, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes please! Also, can we have an "All" section to avoid the need to put your name in every section. I'd also like to suggest adding some things like Editor Review and relisted WP:AFDs. Rd232 talk 03:14, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
I may implement an "all RFCs" section later. And editor review / relisted AFDs are exactly the kinds of things I got this out of the RFC space for. I hope to get this done at some point; as it happens, I have become extraordinarily busy. harej 03:31, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Another bump for motivation! —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 22:52, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
I joined! Now I will actually remember to comment in RFCs! Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:41, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
I'd sign up for an "all" if it was implemented. Gerardw (talk) 11:34, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Update

Feedback Request Service is pretty close to being launched. What made it take so long was the fact that the bot more or less had to be rewritten from the ground up. The big hurdle with FRS is that the bot needed a way to keep tabs on individual RFCs — something it never had to do before. The problem with relying on page titles or section titles is that those can change arbitrarily, and when that does, the bot treats it as a brand new RFC. (You may have noticed this in edit summaries, where the bot claims to be removed an RFC and adding a new one, but really it's the same one with a name change.) With RFC IDs, the bot can keep records on individual RFCs so that it knows when it has gone through its round of contacting users for that RFC. After much testing, the rewrite of RFC bot now works — except for the FRS part. Thus I will have the new RFC bot version 4 running, and after I get some sleep I will see how to make FRS works. You will know once FRS has gone online because you'll see the bot in action. I hope to get that done soon! harej 10:50, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Good job - looking forward to this new service!  Leef5  TALK | CONTRIBS 16:05, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Some editors receiving multiple notifications for the same page

I noticed that some editors are receiving more than one notification to participate on the same page. This was caused in the event of a small enough selection pool that someone would come up twice. I have resolved that by making sure no one can be selected twice. hare j 22:55, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

List hygiene

Thanks for this, Harej - it's fantastic to have it working. Just wondering, now that the service is under way, about what to do about maintaining the list of requesters. For instance, there are already two users on the list who are indef-blocked as sockpuppets; and over time, users will go inactive without removing themselves (the Signpost suffers from the same problems, by the by, but it matters less there). The most obvious thing would be for the notifying bot to check block status and perhaps for recent activity (perhaps 1 edit in the last 12 months as minimum, since editors may have email notification set)? On a related note, I wonder if we couldn't use the userbox to sign up ({{User FRS}}) as an alternative to the list for those who prefer it; this would encourage use of the userbox, which helps promote the service - and when users are blocked, such userboxes would be more likely to be removed. Finally, we talked before about an "all" option to allow users to sign up for all categories without having to put their name in each one - can we do that? Rd232 talk 15:49, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

The bot already discriminates in who it sends requests to. If you haven't edited in the past 30 days you're removed from consideration entirely, and users that do not exist cannot receive requests. (You may have noticed that I switched over a user who changed names. The bot cannot follow renames, so it assumed that a user simply didn't exist.) The bot however does not discriminate against users with extant blocks, though it really should. As for how users sign up, I have been looking to change that. It's extremely inefficient right now; there are only some 125 people who are actually signed up but the page would make it look like several hundred people signed up. With a central list you have the advantage that the bot only has to load one page, but decentralizing it would probably make it easier on users (and I definitely have a history of writing bots for the purpose of decentralization). I will consider different options there. I will also see if I can do an "all" option. hare j 16:41, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
By exerting the least amount of effort possible, I have made signing up for all RFCs an option. hare j 17:19, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Likewise for those who have an extant block but are otherwise eligible. hare j 18:26, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Other feedback requests

Harej just added Good Article nominations, and I think that's an excellent idea. It's actually a thought I had in the back of my mind from ages ago, that if the system is set up and working for RFCs, it can then be expanded for other things that could do with pulling in randomized input from people. Some other candidates include WP:RFC/U and WP:Editor Review; beyond that maybe AFDs which are stuck (eg multiple relisting), and I'm sure there's others we can think of. Rd232 talk 09:44, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

FRS testing underway

Chances are, you've received an FRS notification on your talk page. I've finally begun testing. Now, you will probably end up with more notifications than requested. This is due to both a glitch and the fact that the bot's had to deal with literally all the RFCs in one go (once the bot determines you're good to go with receiving notifications, you may receive as many notifications as the bot decides to assign to you, but you won't get the same page twice). Please bear with me here—this will not happen again (or at least as often), since in future runs the bot will only have to deal with a few new RFCs at a time at most. hare j 06:46, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

There. The backlog of RFCs has been handled. Now the bot will draft commentators on new RFCs as they come up. hare j 07:06, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
One possible bug (or unintended consequence). I put an RfC up for an article (USANA Health Sciences), and because I was also in the FRS list for that econ category, I got tagged on my page to comment on the article. I'm not sure how difficult it would be to add logic to the bot to exclude anyone already involved in that RfC? Just a thought since 2 people were tagged with this article RfC, and I was one of them, so really only 1 outside party was selected. Thanks Harej!  Leef5  TALK | CONTRIBS 11:32, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
I wouldn't call it a bug because that would suggest I made an effort to do something about it, and I admit I did not. The difficulty with coming up with such a filter is that it would require the bot to be able to define where an RFC ends, which is decidedly impossible. An easier way of going about it, though, is simple: if your name appears on the talk page at all, you won't be notified. Presumably if you've commented on that talk page, even if it's a different part, you're already aware of the RFC. I will see if I can do something about putting that into effect. hare j 12:56, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
That sounds brilliant Harej, thank you!  Leef5  TALK | CONTRIBS 14:15, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Thought of one possible hiccup - There could be the possibility that if an article using the RfC process let's say 4-5 times a year, its possible to run out of FRS editors who haven't commented on the article before. I wonder if maybe an error check was put in that if noone is available who hasn't already commented on the talk page previously, it would go ahead and assign the FRS anyway? I realize this might be a moot point the more users that subscribe to the new FRS system.  Leef5  TALK | CONTRIBS 14:22, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
The way it works now, if there are no eligible candidates, the discussion is skipped over. I didn't realize this until now, but the practical effect is that the bot will keep attempting to assign the discussion until there's an assignment. hare j 14:49, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

RFC bot too garrulous

I am finding the repeated sermons from RFC bot on how to respond a little tiresome. And do we really need the quote box as well cluttering up talk pages with a second sermon? This edit could not even manage to keep the box with the main message and added it to the bottom of my talk page header templates. The effect of this, after a few subsequent posts to my page, make it look as if it is my message to visitors to my page. Can we not make this notification briefer and more businesslike, at least for editors who have already received multiple notifications? SpinningSpark 18:56, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Not seeing many reminders

This tool is a great idea! But could someone check and make sure this tool is working properly? I signed up about 2 months ago (with a very large quantity permitted), and I got a few reminders at first, but during the past month I've gotten only 1 or 2. I checked, and there are new RfCs being created steadily. It's not a big deal for me personally, because I can check the RfC page manually, but I'm wondering if other editors that signed up for the tool are "missing" reminders?

There are many RfCs that get no responses at all, or only 1 or 2 ... with so few responses, sometimes a deadlock or argument does not get resolved. It is better when 3 or more uninvolved editors reply. I can point at several RfCs that are about a month old that only got 1 or 2 responses from uninvolved editors.

Also, for a typical RfC, how many editors are notified by this tool, on average? One, two, ten? I'd recommend 10 or 20. Assuming that some editors are too busy or on wikibreak, that might yield 4 or 5 that actually reply to the RfC .. which would be a good turnout, based on my experience.

Anyway: I love the tool, and apologize if the above questions sound critical. I'm just providing some feedback so the tool can be made even better. Thanks! --Noleander (talk) 14:04, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Tool is disabled

I just noticed here [1] that it looks like the tool is disabled because the creator has retired. --Noleander (talk) 14:07, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

... or not. The creator says that User:Chris G is now managing it. --Noleander (talk) 19:27, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
I don't think it is still in operation. I've abruptly stopped receiving RfC notices. I just signed up and was getting several per day. ScottyBerg (talk) 19:34, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
I posted a question to the current (new) maintainer User:Chris G (referring to the section immediately above, in this Talk page). Maybe they can shed some light on the situation. --Noleander (talk) 19:42, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
The RfC bot appears to be in operation.[2]. However, it's odd how the notices in my mailbox suddenly stopped coming. Maybe there's a reasonable explanation for that. ScottyBerg (talk) 19:52, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, maybe some users such as ourselves got inadvertently dropped from its list of participants. Or maybe some "frequency of action" parameter needs to be tweaked. --Noleander (talk) 20:13, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
I think there may be a problem with the bot. The last time any user was notified about any RfC was six hours ago. That doesn't seem right. ScottyBerg (talk) 13:00, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
The maintainer User:Chris G appears to only check into WP every 2 or 3 days, so we may not get an immediate response to this issue. Normally I'm patient, but there is an RfC I initiated that is sort of languishing, and I wish more random editors would swing by and comment. That's what this bot is supposed to do. --Noleander (talk) 13:30, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
You might try emailing him.  :) Might get his attention. - Philippe 13:33, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Done. --Noleander (talk) 13:44, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Happy ? --Chris 02:52, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion: notify more users per RfC

Bot is working - [3]. Hipocrite (talk) 14:23, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

That's great news, but I'd still like to discuss the topics mentioned in the section immediately above in this Talk page, namely: should the bot be issuing more notifications, since RfC response is still sometimes low? For example, I signed up to be notified in several RfC classes, but I have not gotten a notification in awhile, even though many new RfCs have been created recently. How many notifications is the bot sending out? --Noleander (talk) 14:32, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Query: Where would I go to see a log of the notifications that the bot has sent out? In some Contribs log for a bot-user? --Noleander (talk) 14:36, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
[4] looks like it. Hipocrite (talk) 14:46, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
You know, to be fair, I haven't been receiving feedbacks long enough to say that it's out of order. It's possible that one is supposed to get a spurt of notifications and then nothing. I just signed up a few days ago. ScottyBerg (talk) 15:01, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
I've been signed up for awhile. At first the notifications seemed to come regularly, then they've sort of stopped. I understand that that may simply be due to the fact that there are lots of people signed up, and Im just getting rotated in and out. But when I look at RfCs, I see some RfCs that have very little response. The big question is: Is the bot failing to notify enough editors about these RfCs? Or are the notifications okay, but editors are just declining to participate in the RfC? In either case, the remedy is to increase the number of editors that are notified about any single RfC. Or is my logic flawed? --Noleander (talk) 15:05, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Apparently, but I don't know enough about how the bot operates. I think input from the present or former operators would be useful. ScottyBerg (talk) 15:10, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
I looked at the log of the bot's notifications. It seems to be running, but I notice something odd: some RfCSs only get 1 or 2 editors notified. E.g. Elizabeth Rauscher RfC had only 1 notification. Other RfCs got up to 5 or 6 notifications. The range seems to be 1 to 6. I wonder why that is. Anyway, my experience in RfCs is that more is always better, at least up to a point. Many RfCs, even after this tool has been running, are not getting great participation. So my suggestion is to increase the number of notifications per RfC up to 6 to 8 per RfC, with a minimum of 5 or 6 notifications. --Noleander (talk) 16:29, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Here are some specific examples: there was an RfC for Anthony_Bologna, in the Politics topic area, and yet the bot only notified a single editor (Cerejota). Yet there are over 40 editors who've volunteered for the Politics topic area. For the RfC in Elizabeth Rauscher, the bot only notified 1 editor (Veriss1), yet that RfC was in Biographies, which has over 60 volunteers. --Noleander (talk) 16:34, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
The source code for the RfC bot is available here. I dont have time to look at it in detail right now, but just glancing at it, it has some checks to determine if an editor should receive a notification or not ... I wonder if there is a bug in there. I see the code:
       // Finally, the bot randomly selects who will be contacted. 
       if (count($candidates) == 0)                                break;                // No users available for comment. Womp womp.
       if (count($candidates) > 0 && count($candidates) <= 5)        $random_count = 1;    // $random_count is the number of people whose talk pages will be edited by the bot.
       if (count($candidates) > 5 && count($candidates) <= 15)        $random_count = 2; 
       if (count($candidates) > 15)                                $random_count = 3;
which explains some of the limits. --Noleander (talk) 16:52, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
It looks like the goal could be achieved by just changing
if (count($candidates) > 15)								$random_count = 3;
to
if (count($candidates) > 15)								$random_count = 6;
Since just about every RfC category has more than 40 volunteers (and the numbers are growing steadily) there is no reason to limit it to 3 notifications per RfC. With only 3 notifications, you might have one editor that is on wikibreak; one editor that is too busy, and one editor that is not interested in that particular RfC, so zero editors end up participating. But with 6 or 8 notifications, we are more likely to get 2 to 4 editors engaging in the RfC. --Noleander (talk) 17:41, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
That sounds like a sound idea to me, but I know nothing about coding. The operation of this bot mystifies me. ScottyBerg (talk) 18:15, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Well, I would not suggest changing it without more discussion and - of course - the ratification of maintainer ChrisG (nor do I have the write permission to change it), so I'm just trying to lay out the groundwork so when the maintainer visits here all the background information is available. --Noleander (talk) 18:18, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually, what I'd do, is to assume that when someone says "3 a month", what they really means is one every ~10 days. Then, every ten days I'd allocate them one from the pool of RFCs in their chosen field(s) starting with the oldest that had had zero notices sent out (or responses? more complicatedly), then the oldest that have had 1, 2, etc.

As I understand it, this is the opposite way round from the present system, but with higher signup numbers these days I think it should do fine and achieve a "max out" effect. - Jarry1250 [Weasel? Discuss.] 18:47, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

That's a good point. On the other hand, the maintainer inherited this tool's source code from another programmer, so they may be reluctant to make a large change to the design. They may feel more comfortable just tweaking the existing tunable parameters. We'll see. --Noleander (talk) 18:55, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Sure, but to my experienced ears the plan I outlined is well within Chris' vast capabilities :) (I may even be able to help write it myself--I almost offered to take the bot over myself, except for lots of RL business that has overtaken me.) - Jarry1250 [Weasel? Discuss.] 19:15, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Cool. I did offer to take over the tool, but it was already taken. --Noleander (talk) 19:17, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay. I am in the process of rewriting the code; which is taking a bit long than I anticipated, so as a stop-gap solution I've increased $random_count to 6 like was suggested above. --Chris 02:52, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks! --Noleander (talk) 03:28, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I have a recommendation as the original programmer. Every time a user is recommended for an RFC, their counter is incremented. As more users' counters are incremented they reach their limit. As more users have their limits hit, fewer editors can be selected to participate. There's supposed to be a complementary script that purges these counts each month (hence the phrasing of the FRS user template), but I never wrote it. hare j 08:15, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Or if Chris is rewriting the bot to the extent that my aforementioned complementary script doesn't need to be written, more power to him. hare j 08:17, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Per-user limit obsolete?

The per-user limit was a great idea. But now that there are a significant number of editors that enlisted themselves, I'm wondering if it is obsolete? Let's say that a category, like Politics, gets 6 RfCs per month. And let's say the tool issues 8 notifications per RfC. That is 48 notifications per category per month. But the Politics category has about 50 editors. That means that the average number of notifications received by each editor will be around 1 per month. Fast forward one year: the number of editors per category may be 80 or 100, and the average number of notifications will be down to 0.5 per editor per month. Sure, random numbers being what they are, there is a small chance that a given editor may receive 2 or 3 notifications in one month ... but the odds of that are slim, and I cannot imagine anyone complaining. Thus, the limit - due to the large number of editors - doesn't serve much purpose any longer. Thoughts? --Noleander (talk) 16:21, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Rewrite complete

I have now completely rewritten RFC Bot. In doing so I made a fairly major change to how the Feedback request service operated. Overall, I think this has resulted in an improvement for users, however if you feel the bot is spamming you or you are otherwise dissatisfied with the service just drop me a line, and I'll see what we can do. Overall the FRS now operates as follows:

  • Loop through all the users on the FRS page
    • Determine how often a user should receive messages from RFCBot (i.e Days = 30/Limit e.g. 30/5= one every 6 days)
    • Check when the user last received a message from RFCBot
    • If it is within the previously calculated days, skip the user
    • Otherwise, find the most neglected rfc (as in, the Rfc which a user has not been notifed about in the longest amount of time)
    • Send them a message
  • Repeat for the next user

The idea behind this, is that you will receive more regular and consistent notifications, and each Rfc will receive more attention because more users are being notified. --Chris 08:17, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Sounds great! Thanks for doing that. --Noleander (talk) 16:05, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Where to put "frs user"?

This page doesn't say. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 01:18, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Do you mean that the instructions on the project page are not very clear? It would be an easy matter to add some more guidance like "Find the topic area you are interested in, click the Edit button, the past the frs user string into that area, type in your name, then click Save". Is that what you meant? or something else? --Noleander (talk) 01:24, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
I clarified them. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 01:28, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Enhancement request - notification page support

I would like to be able to have rfcbot notify me on a sub page, like on User:Born2cycle/rfcnotices or User Talk:Born2cycle/rfcnotices, rather than on my talk page. Thanks! --Born2cycle (talk) 15:38, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

adding policy RfCs to Article RfC pages, "need" or "spam"?

As per the Spam (electronic) article,

Spam is the use of electronic messaging systems (including most broadcast media, digital delivery systems) to send unsolicited bulk messages indiscriminately.

An argument at WT:Verifiability/First sentence/Procedural states,

Users who participate in the WP:Feedback request service need to be informed about this RfC. Because they may not subscribe to every type of RfC, the system wide listing will increase its audience.

For example, do editors subscribed to WP:Requests_for_comment/Biographies need to be informed about a policy RfC, or is such messaging "spam"?  Comments?  Unscintillating (talk) 12:13, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

FYI, "System wide listing" was operationally defined as listing the WT:V RfC, in addition to WP:Requests for comment/Wikipedia policies and guidelines, on:
  • WP:Requests_for_comment/Biographies
  • WP:Requests_for_comment/History_and_geography
  • WP:Requests_for_comment/Politics,_government,_and_law
  • WP:Requests_for_comment/Art,_architecture,_literature,_and_media
  • WP:Requests_for_comment/Maths,_science,_and_technology
Unscintillating (talk) 12:13, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
IMO it's definitely "spam". People who want to keep up with policy changes already keep an eye on the policy RFC. Furthermore, it's biased: Why are the views of only certain non-policy subjects wanted?
Posts at the Village Pumps, on the other hand, are perfectly appropriate. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:23, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Very much spam. People who want to get notifications of new policy proposal RFCs will have added themselves to the appropriate category with a very high threshold. Hipocrite (talk) 18:01, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
I think its more complicated then that. If an RFC is specific to a topical area, but is a policy change, why shouldn't it be listed for the topic area. For instance, an RFC on the notability guidelines for math equations, I think it would be totally appropriate to classify it as both a Policy and a Math RFC. The approach only seems spammy when the RFC is going to affect pretty much all areas. Monty845 18:08, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
So the need for a policy change could have arisen from a particular article topic area.  So far, there doesn't seem to be any case for a policy RfC being posted to more than one article RfC page, not that that couldn't happen, but none are cited.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:15, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
I agree with WhatamIdoing, both on the fact that it's spam, and also on the other matters she raises.—S Marshall T/C 08:29, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism detection

Can the bot please check this page such that edits that remove section titles or entire sections are automatically reverted? It took me ages to find this months old edit, which messed up the subscriptions for several users. Nageh (talk) 19:55, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Prefer Article Alerts style notification

I think I would prefer passive notification over active notification, similar to what is provided by User:AAlertBot/UP for WikiProjects (e.g., Wikipedia:WikiProject_Telecommunications/Article_alerts). One page for each category that could be watched, and I can check there whenever I find the time to address any of the open RFCs. Thoughts? Would others agree this would be useful? Nageh (talk) 13:53, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Few suggestions

Seems to be a great service this - many thanks for your effort to produce it. Having read the talk page I know know an awful lot more about how this bot service works than I did when I signed up after reading the front page. I'd like to make a few suggestions if I may:

  1. The article doesn't really set expectations well in terms of how mnay requests users are likely to get (apart from the fact you wont get more than the limit) - could some more text be added around that?
  2. To avoid the problem before, where the bot stopped working, is it possible to put in some code into the article page that shows how a user could quickly check that the bot is still working?
  3. Is there any way to change the page so a user can more easily add their name to multiple lists? Not sure how easy this is to do.

Many thanks AndrewRT(Talk) 21:08, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

BRFAs

Could we consider adding BRFAs as a de-facto class of RFCs? - Jarry1250 [Deliberation needed] 15:25, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Late requests

I've signed up for almost everything! I'm very excited to use this feature and I think it's what I'm MAINLY going to be doing on wp. But, I would like to get my requests while things are still open for discussion! I have gotten many late requests and on my watchlist out of the 3 requests for comment 1 of them is currently over. (Muhammad Article) I would sincerely be grateful if these requests were current. Is anyone else having problems with this? Check my talk page to see all my current requests. Another example of a late request is the first request on my talk page for Template Talk:More Plot. Am I missing something? Thepoodlechef (talk) 02:41, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Another rfc- Talk:Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act was sent and I have searched through the archives of that talk page and there is just no RFC anywhere.... Am I missing something? Thepoodlechef (talk) 18:39, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I came to this talk page to discuss the same issue. At Talk:Big Bang Theory (disambiguation)#Comment on RfC, a user is confused and upset because he/she was invited to participate in a 27-day-old RfC (of which a clear outcome already had been reached and implemented) and doesn't understand why there's a "rush to close it" only three days later.
I strongly suggest that all notifications be sent much earlier in the 30-day window. I've left pointers to this thread on Chris G's and Harej's talk pages. —David Levy 20:22, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
I just noticed that the editor removed him/herself from the feedback request service as a result of this incident. —David Levy 00:45, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
The bot will now not send any notifications for Rfcs that will expire within the next 5 days. --Chris 12:37, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

RFCs that you are already participating in

Would it be possible to configure the bot to check whether you have commented on in the RFC before inviting you? Monty845 17:28, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I would appreciate this as well, since I was recently invited to an RFC I am already participating in, and I feel like now we will get no more input. Maybe the bot could check for your signature on the talk page already? -RunningOnBrains(talk) 06:18, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Miscategorized Requests

I signed of for RfCs in the areas of maths, science, and technology. I specifically do not want to see Rfcs on politics. Why am I being asked to comment on Talk:Barack Obama on Twitter? How is that a math, science, or technology issue? If Barack Obama uses a telephone, that doesn't make the topic telecommunications. If he drives a car, that does not make the topic highway engineering. If he flies in an airplane, that does not make the topic aerospace.

If a human is sorting these into categories, tell him to knock it off. If it's an algorithm, it needs tweaking. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:53, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

(...Sound of Crickets...) --Guy Macon (talk) 17:15, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
(Taps Microphone) Hello? Is this thing on? --Guy Macon (talk) 19:17, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
No response. If only there was some place where I could request feedback on the above question... --Guy Macon (talk) 15:04, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Really the issue isn't with the feedback request service, but with RFC tagging practices. The service here just piggybacks off the RFC templates. I you may get more of a response at either Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment or even WP:VPP Monty845 19:59, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! I was getting lonely in here... Posted my question to Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment#Feedback_request_service. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:19, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, that was a waste of time. And now the bot thinks Talk:Abortion is a science and technology topic Trying Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Miscategorized requests at feedback request service now. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:18, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

The bot doesn't think at all. If a discussion is inappropriately tagged, that is because the human tagged it incorrectly. Harej (talk) 20:08, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
Abortion falls under medical related, which falls under science. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:06, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Should music be included?

Should music be included? With Art etc? --Kleinzach 06:29, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Music falls under "Art, architecture, literature, and media," which as it is is a long name. If anything I'm more interested in contracting the title. harej 21:58, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Music would be very cool. Art also. DEIDRA C. (talk) 19:13, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Active users

Is there any attempt by the bot to filter out inactive users? Even very low-activity users may respond to requests if they have email notification enabled, so we need to be cautious, but after the service has been going a while (as it has), it's likely that there will increasingly be inactive users being notified. One approach would be to wait a couple of days after requests and see if users have commented in the RFC, and send another request to someone else if they haven't. Rd232 talk 16:19, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

It's a good idea, but users shouldn't be marked as inactive. I signed up for this under maths, science and tech, but the ones I have received so far are not the kind of things I was looking for, hence I didn't respond. Numbermaniac - T- C 02:00, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Why can't I edit this!

Everytime I try to edit the project page, it works, but with this error:

Request: POST http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Feedback_request_service&action=submit, from 10.64.0.123 via cp1007.eqiad.wmnet (squid/2.7.STABLE9) to 10.2.2.1 (10.2.2.1) Error: ERR_READ_TIMEOUT, errno [No Error] at Fri, 31 May 2013 08:30:03 GMT

Is the page just too big? It happened twice before as well. -- (T) Numbermaniac (C) 08:32, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

It's a phenomenally large page, (it akes around 10 seconds to load sometimes on my connection), so it wouldn't surprise me. I'll try replicating it later when I'm at a machine where I can multitask.  drewmunn  talk  08:49, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
I thought that was the case: Let's see, the size of this page is... 39,898 bytes. -- (T) Numbermaniac (C) 08:54, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
37,000 bytes? I thought it would be bigger than that.
EDIT: Nope, that's the size. The talk page is bigger than the project page, but the project page works. Maybe the high use of templates? -- (T) Numbermaniac (C) 08:56, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
That'd probably make sense, it's pulling a serious amount of data to take that long negotiating before delivery.  drewmunn  talk  09:04, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Time to remove inactive users?

This has been going since sometime in 2011, and I suspect that it would be good to remove the names of any inactive accounts. My quick, semi-random check suggests that the inactivity rate might be approaching 15%.

What do you think should be the cutoff? No edits for a year? No edits since the start of this year? What do you think? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:19, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

By inactive, do you mean the user has not edited Wikipedia in general , or they have not responded to any RfCs? -- (T) Numbermaniac (C) 00:31, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
I'm thinking not editing in general. It's much easier to figure out who hasn't edited for a year (or whatever) than to figure out who hasn't made a particular type of edit for a year. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:23, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Agreed. The only problem is that it is a massive list of names, and it really lags my computer out. See the above section; I can't edit without getting a wikimedia error on that page! -- (T) Numbermaniac (C) 00:04, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
That complaint is one of the reasons that I think we need to do this. I'll try some, using "no edits for a year" as my standard, and perhaps you'll try to weed a few, too. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:42, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
If you want the cutoff at a year I can go ahead and filter those out. Werieth (talk) 23:44, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
I think that would be good. I removed the inactive users manually from "All RFCs" and below on the page, but there are a lot of names above that point that I haven't looked at. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:59, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
Ill take care of the rest. Werieth (talk) 00:34, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I will help too. -- (T) Numbermaniac (C) 01:20, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

too late, all inactive for a year have been removed. Werieth (talk) 01:28, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
I was expecting that at the rate you were going. How did you figure who was inactive and who wasn't?-- (T) Numbermaniac (C) 01:36, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Ive just used some dust from my bag of Magical Pixie dust Werieth (talk) 02:25, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
. -- (T) Numbermaniac (C) 03:09, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for all your work. That reduced the size of the page by nearly 5% and will reduce the number of pointless messages left by the bot. Perhaps we should do this twice a year or so, if someone thinks about it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:06, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Join the Talk:Prince George of Cambridge#Name registration (Official full name) discussion

We need more opinions of editors in order to decide on this matter --93.172.189.235 (talk) 10:02, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Grouping the non-article ones

Would there be a way to add a list that's just 1.10 through 1.14 which is all the non-article RFCs? Having the option to select all RFCs is nice but some people aren't interested in the article ones. In that way it might also be nice to have an article centric (1.1-1.9) one as well. Cat-fivetc ---- 06:52, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Invitation to comment on closed RFC

Oops! The bot is inviting users to comment on closed RFCs. —sroc 💬 06:55, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Whoops! That's because the {{rfc}} template was left in after the RFC was closed. —sroc 💬 09:12, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Invited to a user's sandbox

Similarly to the above comment about an invitation to a closed RfC, I had Legobot invite me to an RfC on a user's talk page sandbox. Everybody knows sandboxes are more fun with friends, but the sandbox was closed (and redlinked) by the time I read the RfC invite. Roches (talk) 15:24, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Received no requests

I signed up over 6 months and so far have had no requests. Have I done something wrong. Op47 (talk) 21:36, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Who issues these requests?

Today I received a RfC about a subpage of the talk page of a user who was indeffed three weeks ago. What's going on here? I assumed when I signed up that only some kind of admin would be able to issue the requests. Maproom (talk) 06:51, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Smaller Posts Please

Currently, when you receive a notification Legobot posts two paragraphs, which if you receive several of these notices can quickly clog up a talk page. Is it possible to trim it. All you need is a link to the RFC and a link to the FRS to edit settings. The below is one paragraph, half the characters and, I would suggest, a significant improvement.

RFC at Made up Topic

The feedback request service is asking for participation in the request for comment on Made up Topic. — Legobot (talk) 67:89, 45 Grune 1234 (UTC)

Excellent suggestion. I for one would support that. Leonardo da VinciTalk 13:26, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
great idea. even more amazing if you could group all RFCs on the user talk page under a single header -- thereby avoiding index clog as well! groupuscule (talk) 16:52, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Change made at Template:FRS message. I don't control any of the bots or understand them well enough to do that sort of grouping. Although if you have a shufti at my talk, you'll see how I get around the issue. SPACKlick (talk) 09:40, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Declining request

Is there a mechanism for declining a specific request, or does the editor simply take no action if the request is outside of his area of expertise or if he is too busy? Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 15:15, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

I quit

I unsubscribed. There are so many RfC's that aren't properly formatted. Final straw was the RfC on emdr. It isn't even an RfC, just a comment with the RfC tag slapped onto it. I'm not wasting my time on this anymore. We need a procedure where not anyone can and will start an RfC for anything. PizzaMan (♨♨) 07:58, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Add RMs, and FAC & FLC, and FAR and GAR

The WP:Requested moves, WP:Featured article candidates (and WP:Featured list candidates, etc.), WP:Featured article review, and WP:Good article review processes all need increased site-wide editorial input; the numbers of uninvolved participants in these discussions has fallen through the floor in the last couple of years, leading to a lot of factional and "ownership" behavior, and system-gaming against compliance with various parts of the naming conventions, Manual of Style, and other policies and guidelines.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  15:32, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

"Closure request service"?

I've noticed a real problem lately with RfCs expiring and being left to languish without closure, leading to the lack of resolution of whatever is being discussed, and inevitably resulting in more RfCs or whatever. This service does a great job of soliciting participation in RfCs, so I wondered if perhaps one could create a "Closure request service", soliciting administrators to close expired RfCs in much the same manner? I believe that this would be a great help to the RfC process, which frankly seems broken in many respects at the moment. RGloucester — ☎ 17:20, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Sounds like something to build into WP:ANRFC; I wouldn't want it to be part of FRS, or lots of non-admins who are not competent to do WP:NAC will run around doing inappropriate supervote closures of RfCs they have a stake in. The same set of bot tools could probably take care of the subscriptions and notifications, though. I would especially advocate avoiding topical categorization, and instead using namespace categorization (article talk RfCs, template talk RfCs, etc.), again to suppress the urge to engage in topical supervoting. The last thing we need is an admin who strongly non-neutral on a wide swath of topics (religion, e.g.) to subscribe to RfC closure requests in that particular area.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  15:37, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Late invitations

I find that the bot often sends me an invitation to a RfC that has already been running for a couple of weeks, so that I arrive there too late to contribute anything useful. See, for example, Talk:Constant_of_integration#rfc_3A0BE72 and scroll almost all the way to the bottom. Can the bot be instructed not to send people to RfCs that are already a week or more old? Maproom (talk) 06:57, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

It's more that it needs to find all new RfCs in any given day and process them that day. I agree this is a problem, but the problem lies in the queuing process, not in the notification process.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  15:39, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Categorisation of Religion with philosophy

Hello, why should those interested in religion receive queries about philosophy, and why should queries about religion be redirected to those dealing with philosophy. Don't tell us what is expected of us. Make a real reason why these should not be categorised separately please. Don't tell us that to be philosophical is to be religious. It is not fair for us to do that anywhere on Wikipedia. Please say why we should accept that. ~ R.T.G 15:54, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

The only unquestionable categorisation of religion and philosophy in this situation is to do with religious philosophy. If people are interested in taking on both, they should have their name down in two places. Fair enough? ~ R.T.G 15:56, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
The categories are not implying that the two subjects are equal or synonymous, simply that they can be grouped together as similar (i.e. History and Geography). If we created seperate groups for each subject, the list would be enormous. Liberties have to be taken to create general categories or there would be too many. StarHOG (talk) 17:31, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
The length of the list a bot goes over is certainly not a real issue, and a list of small sub sections wherein individual sections are important can only truly be taken in that manner, or else what is the point of sections when it's all academic at that stage. Why is history categorised with geography? I know you had to look carefully through the list to find that unless you were already aware of this situation because overall the list tends to be categorised reasonably. I will philosophically say, should the answer to the question, why did you cut bits of the list off simply be, to make it shorter of course? Well that's quite funny and I am truly holding in a LOL at it, but it does not address the issue. ~ R.T.G 18:57, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Why should those interested in religion receive queries about philosophy unless they specifically requested them? ~ R.T.G 18:58, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

You already asked that and it was already answered. Please don't recycle back to the same demand (the very same day even!) just because you don't like the answer you got the first time; see proof by assertion and WP:NOTGETTINGIT.

A longer answer: The purpose of FRS is to increase neutral participation in consensus discussions, not to direct WP:GREATWRONGS / WP:SOAPBOX agitators to articles they can unduly influence. Universal existential and moral questions – why are we here? how and why does the universe exist? what is the self, and it it illusory? is the reality we see around us all there is? is there a higher power and, if so, what does it expect of us, if anything, or even care about us at all? how do we define various rights and wrongs, to whom to these apply under what circumstance, and based on what authority? – are central to both religion and philosophy. As academic and intellectual disciplines, the two are inextricably intertwined, and have only been distinct topics for a few centuries. Anyone actually competent to supply meaningful input about (and do proper reliable-source research about) religion as a general topic (versus "exact doctrinal nitpicks in my particular schism in my particular faith") is also competent to do so for philosophy, and vice versa, but not necessarily for chemistry, fine art, law, telecommunications, etc. It makes sense to group these two topics together, both to get competent input, and to prevent FRS being abused as a "lobby against all religions", "lobby against atheists", "lobby against a particular religion" or "lobby against all religions but mine" service.

A shorter answer: Because it works fine this way, and over 6 months after you asked for a change there has been no support for it.
 — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  15:59, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Receive messages on subpage instead of talk page

This was asked here many moons ago but it received no response. Could we get an option that allows messages to be delivered to a user subpage instead of our talk pages? I don't like having bot messages on my talk page, they clutter things up and the notifications they give falsely give the impression that someone is trying to talk to me. I'd rather hide them out of the way somewhere and then check in when a change shows up on my watchlist. This could be achieved rather simply by having people interested in doing this add a link to the page they want messages delivered to after their username on the list. Legotm, since you operate Legobot, would this be up to you to integrate?  DiscantX 07:33, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

@DiscantX: In the interim, you can create a {{doppelganger}} account (e.g. User:DiscantX2), not use it for editing, and simply as a place to receive FRS, wikiproject, Signpost, and other subscription notices, and even use it's separate preferences settings to send e-mail notification to a different address or not at all.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  16:02, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Requesting more alerts

I've noticed the number of messages I've gotten from this has considerably dropped recently. Is there any way one can ask for more alerts, short of simply raising one's limits? —烏Γ (kaw), 08:31, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

@KarasuGamma: raising one's limit will do it, as will subscribing to more categories, at least up to a point. I'm not certain what the algorithms really are, but I get nowhere near my limit on any topic. This is probably a factor of there just not being all that large a number of RfCs in various topics, and possibly also the bot not "spamming" any particular user all that much. It may have an internal limit on the max number of notices it will leave for anyone, regardless how many requests they say they're willing to receive. Not really sure. 16:06, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

This could be a lot easier

I'm doing manual notifications today because the "legobot" is messed up. Manual notifications would be a LOT easier if someone would manually or (better yet) automatically remove editors from these lists who have not edited anything for a year or more. What a waste of my time!Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:55, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Edit notice is incorrect

The edit notice for this page says to use {{crs user}} while the page itself says to use {{frs user}}, which appears to be the correct template. Could someone please correct the edit notice? Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 15:49, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Sorting the lists and archiving the talk

I come here with two proposals. The first one is that the list of users in every section i.e every topic area is so muddled. I wish to sort them out alphabetically and also add a notice at the top stating users to add their name alphabetically. If this proposal is accepted, I will take the responsibility to do so. Doing so will help in sorting and also will give tidy look to the page. The second one is about the archiving the talk page (by the archiving bots). Please share your opinion regarding these. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 08:27, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

I am in favor of both suggestions. Maproom (talk) 09:19, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Agree Dan Koehl (talk) 09:30, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Subscription list has been purged

I've purged this subscription list of users who are indef'ly blocked or banned. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  02:28, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Duplicate notifications for feedback service

Also posted on Legobot talk page. Not sure if this is a bug or if anything can be done about it, but the Legobot notified me twice for the feedback request service for the same item, once on Sept. 7 and once on Oct. 9th, and I'd already commented. Is it supposed to keep track of who has already been notified? Here are the alerts. [[5]] and [[6]]. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 16:50, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Answered at User talk:Legobot#Duplicate notifications for feedback service. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:08, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Broken link to RFC talk page

Today I received a RFC for Talk:?Oumuamua. The correct link is Talk:ʻOumuamua. Maproom (talk) 15:33, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Answered at User:Maproom/archive 9#Please comment on Talk:?Oumuamua. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:11, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Repeated invitation to same RFC

I have received two invitations to the same RFC: Talk:2014 Oso mudslide#rfc_DB83190, 04:24 October 16 and 04:33 November 16. Is this a bug? Maproom (talk) 13:43, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

The diffs are 04:24, 16 October 2016 and 04:33, 16 November 2016. The first links to Talk:2014 Oso mudslide#rfc_55C7D5C and the second to Talk:2014 Oso mudslide#rfc_DB83190. The RfC IDs differ, so this is likely to be the same issue as those below that are explained at User talk:Legobot#Duplicate notifications for feedback service. The relevant edits to that RfC are removing expired RFC template which had |rfcid=55C7D5C, reopening the RFC, and adding RFC ID which is |rfcid=DB83190. Hypothesis confirmed. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:28, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Late invitations

I've asked about this before.

Today, December 16th, I received an invitation to a RfC which was created on December 2nd. When I went there, I found that the issue had been thoroughly hammered out by other editors. This is not unusual for me. I can't believe that the invitation process is meant to work this way. A sensible way to operate it would be to have a process that runs once a day (or maybe more, certainly not much less), makes a list of RfCs created since it last ran, and promptly sends out the invitations to some of the list of volunteers. SMcCandlish has explained "problem lies in the queuing process, not in the notification process". So what's wrong with the queueing process, and why hasn't it been fixed? Is it just me, or do all volunteers routinely get invitations to weeks-old RfCs? Will it help if I remove my name from the lists of volunteers, wait a month, and then re-add it? Maproom (talk) 08:50, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't remember explaining that, but will take your word for it. Anyway, I too often get invites to RfCs that are already stale. There's not much point. It would arguably be better to receive a block of them per day, each RfC in a subsection, and all of them RfCs that were started that day, rather than a trickle of random ones. This would make talk page maint easier, too.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  22:51, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
Removing my name from the list, waiting a month, and re-adding it has not helped. Today I received an invitation to a 23-day old RfC, having previously received one to the same RfC when it was "only" 10 days old. I still don't understand why any delay is ever introduced. I see that the process that farms out the invitations is only run every three or four days; but when it is run, why doesn't it finish its task, rather than sometimes deciding "I'll sit on this one for a couple of weeks, and then send out the invitations." Maproom (talk) 08:47, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
I noticed this also - always seems like I"m late to the feedback game. And I just got a duplicate notice for an item I commented on last month - see below. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 16:52, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
An editor familiar with the bot explained the duplicate notification came because the rfc code was changed, so that's fine. More detail here: User_talk:Legobot#Duplicate_notifications_for_feedback_service Still waiting to see if there's a reason the notifications are delayed. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 21:16, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
Some info about the FRS delays for interested editors. User_talk:Legobot#Duplicate_notifications_for_feedback_service TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 18:07, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Is this broken or shut down?

I don't know if it's because I've been inactive, but I haven't gotten a message from the bot in almost two years. —⁠烏⁠Γ (kaw) │ 07:54, 02 May 2019 (UTC)

@KarasuGamma: This is covered at User talk:Legobot#No longer receiving RFC notices; we fixed it for a significant number of people, but some are still not receiving, such as QEDK. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:17, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
One possibility is that before today, you had made no edits of any kind for over a year. Some bots will not post to the talk pages of inactive users. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:21, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
@Redrose64: I suspected that, so I'm not complaining; I just wanted to check, since my last notice came exactly one month after I disappeared. (I would've liked to still get notifications, since that probably would've pulled me back in, but the bot has no way of knowing that.) —⁠烏⁠Γ (kaw) │ 22:31, 02 May 2019 (UTC)
Seems to be working now. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 12:32, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, everything's fine. I exist again, so the bot notices me. —⁠烏⁠Γ (kaw) │ 07:46, 07 May 2019 (UTC)

Possible sampling bias?

I do not think that randomly selecting people from the list will make the survey results representative of the whole Wikipedia community due to sampling bias. It is possible that people who have certain opinions are more likely to add themselves to the list. However, even if we get rid of the list and simply ask completely random users for a comment, this will not solve the problem as people with certain opinions can be more likely to answer the survey. I do not see the solution to this as long as RfC is voluntary. Pretty much any voluntary survey will be biased, but obviously, we cannot force people to participate in RfCs, so I guess this is better than nothing? William2001(talk) 19:59, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Still receiving messages

I have unsubscribed by all lists, removed my name from all categories and am still receiving feedback request messages on my talk page. How can I stop this? Nikolaiho☎️📖 19:12, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

See also User talk:Legobot#Took my name off list for RfC, still getting messages. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:04, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
It is impossible to get off Legobot's list once you add your name to it. People have been complaining about this for months, and perhaps Legobot should go offline until this behavior is corrected. Setting the number to 0 on the FRS list results in a setting of UNLIMITED messages per month. Setting the number to 1, supposedly for 1 message per month, has resulted in my getting 1 message per week. Bots with no unsubscribe option should not exist. HouseOfChange (talk) 08:52, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
The only way of taking Legobot offline is to block it. That would stop it from carrying out all of its other tasks, several of which are useful. You should be able to use {{bots|deny=Legobot}}. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:29, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
I added that message to my talk page, as you suggested. Today I got a new message from Legobot. Useres should be warned that adding their name to the listis is an irreversible invitation for Legobot spam. HouseOfChange (talk) 09:01, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
Legobot should be brought offline until it respects the tlx bots deny script. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ● 📧 13:10, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Caution notice added to project page

I added a caution banner to the project page: "Several editors have reported problems with the Feedback request service's reliability and accuracy. Please see the Talk page for more information and to discuss."   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 21:33, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Not getting any invitations?

I've been on the list for quite some time under my username (pre-change) and recently under my post-change username and I haven't gotten a single invitation. Meanwhile, I see others inundated with invitations to the point where they are taking their names off the list due to being overwhelmed. Is this normal? May His Shadow Fall Upon You Talk 14:00, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Same problem here, I suspect the bot is not reading updates made to this page. This service is abandoned. − Pintoch (talk) 15:56, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
There have been no FRS messages sent out since 15 December 2019, this has been recorded at User talk:Legoktm/April 2020#Legobot not leaving feedback request messages? and elsewhere. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 14:48, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm signed up under several categories and was getting them regularly and now none since mid-December 2019. North8000 (talk) 13:13, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

I know. See my post of 14:48, 2 May 2020 (UTC). I have tried to work it out, but have not found a solution; and Legoktm (talk · contribs) is being silent on the matter. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:46, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
@Redrose64, May His Shadow Fall Upon You, Pintoch, and North8000: If there's demand for it, I'm planning on building out a replacement for the functionality Legobot has in sending out the FRS notifications. I'm waiting at the moment just to check that Legoktm isn't working on it actively, but if I don't get a response to that or if they're not working on it, I'll be happy to rustle something up - is this still something you all want in the first instance? Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 11:22, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
@Naypta: thanks a lot for volunteering for this! Indeed I haven't received anything from FRS either. It would be great if the replacement bot could be open source and hosted on toollabs, so that other people can step in to fix things when needed. − Pintoch (talk) 13:20, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
Naypta, I would love it. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ● 📧 13:58, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
@May His Shadow Fall Upon You and Pintoch: and we're done! Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Yapperbot Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 17:00, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
@Naypta: Is it working now? I am on the list for getting all RfC's and I haven't gotten any since I signed up on 5 April 2020. --David Tornheim (talk) 18:48, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
@David Tornheim: The bot is working, yes, but it's currently awaiting approval from the Bot Approvals Group, and so can't perform any tasks at the moment (it has performed all the edits it can in the edit-limited trial period it was granted). You can follow the bot's progress through the bot approval process here All the best, Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 18:50, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for update! --David Tornheim (talk) 19:02, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Notice

I just received a notice saying I was unsubscribed because I hadn't edited Wikipedia in 3 years. Well, I usually edit every day! But I don't remember getting notices from you in the past. Seems like something is out of order. Liz Read! Talk! 21:29, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Liz, same here. Vexations (talk) 21:31, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
@Liz and Vexations: Hi both and anyone else confused coming across this. You've received this message because you had a previous account name subscribed to the Feedback Request Service, which never got changed on the list after your account was renamed. It'd be a good idea to check if your new account is subscribed to the FRS, and if it's not, add your name where you're interested!
You might well not have got any notices from the FRS in the recent past, as for a fair while Legobot hasn't been sending them. My bot is currently in the process of taking over from Legobot, and is just awaiting the final approval from WP:BAG to do so - once it's up, you should be getting messages again
All the best, Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 21:39, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Naypta, that explains it, thanks. Vexations (talk) 21:43, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
So, what happens if we do nothing?--Mark Miller (talk) 02:10, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
@Mark Miller: If you do nothing, unless your username is on the list, you won't receive anything from the Feedback Request Service in future until you resubscribe. It is possible that both your old username and your new, renamed username appeared on the list; if that is the case, only your old username has been removed, your new username will still be there.
To be sure about what the situation is, I'd advise you look for your name on the page here - if you don't want to be subscribed, remove it from the page, and if you do want to be subscribed, then add it if it's missing to the categories you're interested in. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 10:48, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

::::It might be helpful to add a note to "For users who no longer wish to give feedback" pointing out that If you do nothing, unless your username is on the list, you won't receive anything from the Feedback Request Service in future until you resubscribe. I got 3 notices, clicked on the link to remove myself from the list, found I was not on the list, searched all over for something related that wasn't techspeak, and was stumped as to my next move until I finally read the entire talk page here and found this section. Just saying. Her Pegship (I'm listening) 15:53, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

@Pegship: Hi, sorry for the trouble. To be clear, did you receive a message saying you were unsubscribed from the service for a prolonged period of inactivity? That's what this is talking about, and that message didn't have a link to remove yourself from the list, because it was only sent to people who were already removed. If that's not the message you received, could you point me to what you're talking about? Thanks! Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 17:00, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
Good grief, please disregard my previous comment... I thought I was on my talk page when I saw it, and I was actually on someone else's talk page. My profuse apologies, and I'll show myself out... Her Pegship (I'm listening) 20:03, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
@Pegship: No worries aha, happens to us all! You're of course very welcome to subscribe yourself or unsubscribe as you wish! Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 20:29, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Editors removing themselves from notification list

@Naypta: A number of editors removed themselves from the notification right after User:Yapperbot was fired up. I'm guessing they were frustrated by getting so many notices at once. I sent them notices to tell them about the backlog issue:

I'm not planning on doing any further notifications like that. I'm hoping if more editors remove themselves because of the deluge of notifications on a single day rather than distributed more evenly throughout the month, you can apologize to them, say it won't happen again, that the issue is being addressed, and invite them to discuss any fixes or desired functionality for the bot. --David Tornheim (talk) 01:37, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

@David Tornheim: Thanks for dropping me a note, David. I put a notice on the top of the page, letting people know about this, and I've also had an edit notice added to the page for the next week explaining the problem, that it won't happen again, and apologising for the inconvenience, thanking people for bearing with. I won't reach out to people unsubscribing individually, because I don't want to seem like I'm targeting them for unsubscribing, or trying to prevent them from doing so if they wish to; the FRS is an opt in service, and people are entirely within their rights to unsubscribe if they don't want notifications. Some people may just have decided that they didn't want to be on the FRS list, and only remembered that they were when the new bot started working; that's their right, and I want to respect their decision on that. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 08:27, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
Makes sense. --David Tornheim (talk) 09:59, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Bot enabled -- concerns

Further information: User_talk:Yapperbot § Frequency_functionality_continued

@Naypta: Thx for getting the bot for this (Yapperbot (talk)) enabled. Now I am getting invites. I asked for no more than 30 per month, which to me means about one per day. Unfortunately, I got all 30 invitations in one day. [7] Is there a way to revise the frequency to not be so overwhelming? --David Tornheim (talk) 08:58, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

@David Tornheim: Hi David, sorry for the trouble. As explained on the user page, as well as on the main FRS page, the bot was working through a backlog of all the RfCs that were still pending. That's now cleared, so you shouldn't ever receive such a large volume simultaneously again - it'll send you messages distributed throughout, as people create the RfCs. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 09:13, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

P.S. I see this being discussed:

--David Tornheim (talk) 09:10, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

--David Tornheim (talk) 00:37, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Requesting including AfDs and RfAs

Is there any mechanism for including more non-RfCs in this system, such as AfDs and RfAs? —⁠烏⁠Γ (kaw), 09:10, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I'd still like to request this. —⁠烏⁠Γ (kaw) │ 07:53, 02 May 2019 (UTC)
@KarasuGamma: Hi! Are you still interested in this? I may be able to get this built into the new FRS bot - it'd take some consideration as to how best to design it, though. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 22:49, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
@Naypta: Yes. I don't know anything about how this (or bots in general) works, but I imagine it would simply send out a notice for every RfA/B that pops up (and stays for a certain amount of time, to not spam people with fake/vandalism runs), and perhaps you can draw from the various WP:DELSORT pages. —⁠烏⁠Γ (kaw) │ 23:16, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
@KarasuGamma: Hey, thanks for bearing with! Now that the new bot has launched, I'm planning a survey of FRS subscribers, which will be publicised by mass message to people who are subscribing to the FRS, and also at the Village Pump. It will feature questions about both AfDs and RfAs - as you'd expressed an interest in these, I'd love to get your feedback on whether the questions asked are good ones, and whether you think there should be any modifications, or if any other questions that are not currently included in the survey ought to be. If you have the time, it'd be great if you could take a look at Wikipedia:Feedback request service/2020 survey before I publicise it - thanks so much! Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 10:55, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
@Naypta: I like that survey, and don't have anything to add on the question side, but I've already prepared responses for when it's live. Thank you again for everything you've done to rebuild the FRS. —⁠烏⁠Γ (kaw) │ 09:40, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Still not receiving invitations myself

Been about a week since I added myself here, in two separate categories where I said I wanted no limit on the number of RFCs I'm invited to take part in every month. Haven't heard a peep. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 15:31, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm suffering from the same issue. No idea why. Pinging @Naypta: — Yours, Berrely • Talk∕Contribs 17:47, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
For context, Yapperbot's FRS task was down entirely from November 4, 2020 to January 15, 2021 and again from February 9 to March 19, 2021, which probably explains why Berrely didn't receive messages. No idea what happened with Zeke, the Mad Horrorist, but he seems to be receiving messages now so it's not worth investigating. * Pppery * it has begun... 22:26, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Breaking down categories.

The categories seem a bit busy. Would it be possible to add volunteer defined subcategories? Or at least allow volunteers to specify what branches of knowledge they are comfortable with?

For example, in Religion and Philosophy, users could specify whether religion or philosohpy, they could specify what religion, Islam, Evangelism, Catholicism, Judaism, etc...--TZubiri (talk) 20:23, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

This may in theory be a good idea, but is in practice highly unlikely to happen because the Feedback Request service is reliant on a set of bots whose operators are either entirely absent or not actively responding to requests to update their code. Also, it belongs at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment and/or Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations rather than here, since it is fundamentally a question of what the RfC/GAN categories should be, and the Feedback Request service list only reflects upstream decisions. * Pppery * it has begun... 22:26, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Feedback_request_service/Archive_1&oldid=1221516194"