Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard: Difference between revisions

**RfCs only achieve anything when you already know what the outcome will be before you open them. They solidify existing consensus, but are pretty ineffective for finding new solutions. If there is a consensus here that IBANs are being overproposed, and there is a clear policy change that most people agree would help, it might be worth having an RfC. Otherwise, I think the best way to go about it is through the labour of simply shooting down the frivolous requests until people start seeing they aren't being granted. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:TonyBallioni|TonyBallioni]] ([[User talk:TonyBallioni#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/TonyBallioni|contribs]]) </small>

***I'm not entirely sure I agree with "only achieve something" since I wouldn't be attempting to achieve something (where "achieve something" is defined as PAG change) :) --in my mind, it would be an RFC simply to gather comments from editors (literally the name, as they have the flexibility to be employed). Then, we could get along to crafting language to whatever comes out of that discussion. Alternatively, a normal editing discussion could be had on [[WT:BAN]], without the RFC tag, since I would guess most persons interested in the policy already watch the page in question. --[[User:Izno|Izno]] ([[User talk:Izno|talk]]) 17:19, 13 March 2018 (UTC)