Requests for comment/Require RfC filers to be autoconfirmed on Meta

This is a subpage; for more information, see the Requests for comments page.

Requests for comment/Policy should be amended to require people who file RfCs hold the autoconfirmed group (in addition to the other procedural requirements). This should serve to discourage RfCs from outsiders ranting unproductively about the state of their own wikis and refocus the process toward actual issues of interest to the regulars here. * Pppery * _{it has begun} 02:37, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support, and I think it could be even higher (eg a certain user age or global edit count requirement). Leaderboard (talk) 04:47, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Both of those already exist at Requests for comment/Policy#Initiating an RFC. I'm proposing adding an activity requirement specific to Meta to the process as well. * Pppery * _{it has begun} 04:50, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OK I forgot that. Leaderboard (talk) 06:04, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support autoconfirmed is not a very high bar to reach and I cannot realistically see any particular downsides of this. //shb (t • c) 12:19, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral While most abuse cases got redirected to U4C in a constructive way and probably everyone agrees it is a good action in cleaning out/simplifying RfC process I don't see the value this policy would bring. Wikimedia projects are built on consensus and the latter is build on arguments or their power. Would a good argument from an anonymous editor be any different from that of an autoconfirmed user? I don't think so. Instead of setting limits to who can start discussions we should focus on more what's acceptable to argue at RfC and what not (inline with current policies). A09|(pogovor) 14:37, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seems OK. --نوفاك اتشمان (talk) 11:05, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support sure --Cactus🌵 ^spiky ^ouch 10:46, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The current situation is such that even outside observers can point out significant irregularities on local wikis regarding wikipolicies, rules and guidelines, which most often involve accounts with systop privileges; if nothing else, this possibility should be left open to them. Зорана Филиповић (talk) 14:45, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ofc. — Sadko (words are wind) 10:36, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support – This requirement would be a formality, as the proposer will have to make five edits on Meta before starting an RfC. While this might slightly reduce the quantity of RfCs, it may raise the quality of them, and save us time to focus on the productive ones. – Aca (talk) 20:50, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, seems like a bad solution to a non-existing problem --Isderion (talk) 13:11, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The problem quite clearly exists; that the Meta RfC process is overwhelmed with misplaced rants that nobody wants to do anything about. * Pppery * _{it has begun} 05:00, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
When someone is agitated enough to come here for an issue, then an edit requirement of 5 will most likely not keep him away. Isderion (talk) 18:53, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The fact is that users who contribute to a Wiki may not necessarily participate in and be familiar with Metawiki, and this measure will make it more difficult for contributors to file complaints. and, I don't know if there is sufficient statistical and logical analysis here, but it doesn't seem difficult for someone who wants to come here to ranting to get an automatic confirmation permission on Meta. ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 08:59, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
this measure will make it more difficult for contributors to file complaints - That's the point; this process is getting overwhelmed with un-fleshed-out complaints. In the extremely unlikely event that there's truly a systematic issue that warrants the Meta RfC process's (as opposed to the U4C)'s attention then surely someone who is autoconfirmed will point that out to us. And in the mean time things that don't meet that really high bar don't waste my time. * Pppery * _{it has begun} 01:47, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Pppery: do you think an edit request system could be useful for this? —Matrix (_{user page} ^{(@ commons)} - _talk?) 21:16, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Waiting four days and making 10 edits is easier than writing a productive, useful RfC. * Pppery * _{it has begun} 21:58, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nemoralis (talk) 21:33, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support, per #c-Pppery-20250728014700-Sheminghui.WU-20250726085900. --dring sim 07:36, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral per A09 above. Requiring autoconfirmed may help cut down on frivolous RfCs, but a good argument from a new or even anonymous editor is not inherently less valuable than one from an autoconfirmed users. Users following current policy (three months account age, 250 edits globally) isn’t that much new, they could have similar experience like an autoconfirmed user, current policy can be enough for that. So I don’t think they'd explicitly make 5 edits here to follow the policy is required. Instead of adding barriers on who can start RfCs, perhaps the focus should remain on what arguments are acceptable under current policies.🪶-TΛNBIRUZZΛMΛN (💬) 14:42, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of adding barriers on who can start RfCs, perhaps the focus should remain on what arguments are acceptable under current policies -> I tried that with Requests for comment/Limit scope of RfC process and everyone hated it. * Pppery * _{it has begun} 05:13, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support or at least require them to make some kind of request to file an RfC. —Matrix (_{user page} ^{(@ commons)} - _talk?) 13:42, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support, better to also enforce such a requirement for further U4C cases. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 16:12, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]