Wikipedia:Requests for comment
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Requests for comment (RfC) is an informal, lightweight process for requesting outside input, consensus building, and dispute resolution, with respect to article content, user conduct, and Wikipedia policy and guidelines. |
- WP:RFC redirects here. You may be looking for Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser (WP:RFCU).
Contents |
[edit] Suggestions for responding
All editors (including anonymous or IP users) are welcome to provide comment or opinion, and to assist in reaching agreements, by responding to requests for comment.
- Remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia; all articles must follow Neutral point of view, Verifiability, and No original research.
- RfCs are not votes. Try to have a discussion, rather than a "yes/no" segregation.
- Try not to be confrontational. Be friendly and civil, and assume good faith in other editors' actions.
- Mediate where possible - identify common ground, attempt to draw editors together rather than push them apart.
- If necessary, educate users by referring to the appropriate Wikipedia policies or style page.
[edit] Request comment on articles, templates, or categories
[edit] Prior to requesting comment
- This section is for comments on page content; for issues with user conduct, see Request comment on users, below.
- Before asking outside opinion here, it generally helps to simply discuss the matter on the article talk page first.
- If the article is complex or technical, it may be worthwhile to ask for help at the relevant WikiProject.
- If the issue is just between two editors, you can simply and quickly ask a third opinion on the Wikipedia:Third opinion page.
- If you want general help in improving an article, such as to Featured status, then list it at Peer review.
[edit] Instructions
| Active RfCs by topic area | ||
|---|---|---|
| Biographies | (watch) | {{RFCbio}} |
| Economy, trade, and companies | (watch) | {{RFCecon}} |
| History and geography | (watch) | {{RFChist}} |
| Language and linguistics | (watch) | {{RFClang}} |
| Maths, science, and technology | (watch) | {{RFCsci}} |
| Art, architecture, literature and media | (watch) | {{RFCmedia}} |
| Politics | (watch) | {{RFCpol}} |
| Religion and philosophy | (watch) | {{RFCreli}} |
| Society, sports, law, and sex | (watch) | {{RFCsoc}} |
- Select the appropriate template from the table to the right - if requesting comments on an article, template, category, etc. about Politics, use {{RFCpol}}, Biographies use {{RFCbio}}, etc.
- Create a section for the RfC on the bottom of the disputed article's talk page; the section title should be neutral.
- Place the template at the top of the new section. Fill out the template as follows:
{{RFCpol | section=section title !! reason=neutral statement !! time=~~~~~}} using the section title selected in step two and a brief neutral statement that will appear on the appropriate RfC page (example). Sign with five tildes, to present a timestamp but no signature. Do not use "subst".
- Include a brief, neutral statement of the issue below the template (ideally the same statement used in step 3).
- Now you're done. A bot will take care of the rest.
[edit] Example use of RFCxxx Template
Below is an example of how a completed RFCxxx template and associated section heading might appear in a discussion page edit box before saving.
==RfC: Is Photo in History section relevant==
{{RFCxxx | section=RfC: Is Photo in History section relevant !! reason=Is the photograph in the "History" section relevant to the article? !! time=~~~~~}}
Is the photograph in the "History" section relevant to the article?
All issues related to a topic area, even if about the article title or inclusion of images, go in the section for that topic area. If you are not certain in which area an issue belongs, pick the one that's closest, or inquire on the village pump. For requesting comment on style issues, consider posting at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Style issues. Discussions will be removed after one month, or if they have no recent comments. If a dispute becomes active again, you may repost it here.
[edit] Request comment on policy and conventions
| General policy and convention issues | ||
|---|---|---|
| Wikipedia style, referencing, layout and WikiProjects | (watch) | {{RFCstyle}} |
| Wikipedia policies, guidelines and proposals | (watch) | {{RFCpolicy}} |
A policy or guideline RfC is for requesting comment on proposed policies and guidelines, proposed revisions to existing policies and guidelines, or article issues which concern a policy or guideline. A style RfC is for requesting comment on style issues spanning multiple articles, or for proposals on new or revised recommendations in the Wikipedia:Manual of Style. Policy and proposals are also sometimes discussed at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) and Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals).
For instructions, see the section above (i.e. make a new section on the talk page and add {{RFCstyle}} or {{RFCpolicy}} to it).
[edit] Request comment on users
| User-related issues | ||
|---|---|---|
| Further instructions are on each page | ||
| User conduct | (watch) | (add entry) |
| User names | (watch) | (add entry) |
To report an offensive or confusing user name in violation of Wikipedia username policy, see subpage User names.
To report spam, page blanking, and other blatant vandalism, see Wikipedia:Vandalism.
A user-conduct RfC is for discussing specific users who have violated Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Carefully read the following before filing an RfC.
- Before requesting community comment, at least two editors must have contacted the user on their talk page, or the talk pages involved in the dispute, and tried but failed to resolve the problem. Any RfC not accompanied by evidence showing that two users tried and failed to resolve the same dispute may be deleted after 48 hours. The evidence, preferably in the form of diffs, should not simply show the dispute itself, but should show attempts to find a resolution or compromise. The users certifying the dispute must be the same users who were involved in the attempt to resolve it.
- A user who is the subject of an RfC should be notified on their talk page. This may be done with the template {{subst:ConductDiscussion}}. {{subst:ConductResult|outcome of RfC}} may be used for the closing of the RfC.
- RfCs brought solely to harass or subdue an adversary are not permitted. Repetitive, burdensome, or unwarranted filing of meritless RfCs is an abuse of the dispute resolution process. RfC is not a venue for personal attack.
- An RfC may bring close scrutiny on all involved editors. The Arbitration Committee closely considers evidence and comments in RfC if the editors involved in the RfC are later named in a request for arbitration. Filing an RfC is not a step to be taken lightly or in haste.
- In most cases, editors named in an RfC are expected to respond to it. The Arbitration Committee considers a response or lack of it, as well as the comments and endorsements from the community, if the matter ends up being escalated to arbitration.
- Disputes over article content, including disputes over how best to follow the neutral point of view policy, belong in an Article RfC.
- For a mild-to-moderate conflict, you might try Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts, a quick, simple way to get an outside view.
[edit] Ending RfCs
RfCs are automatically ended by the RfC bot after thirty days. If consensus has been reached before then, the RfC nominator(s) can remove the RfC tag, and the bot will remove the discussion from the list on its next run.
[edit] See also
- Archives of user conduct disputes
- Special:Prefixindex/Wikipedia:Requests for comment, lists subpages of this page
