Wikipedia:Requests for comment
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- For Request for checkuser, see WP:SPI.
- For Redirects for creation, see WP:AFC/R.
- For automatic linking of RFC expressions, see WP:RFCAUTO.
Requests for comment (RfC) is an informal, lightweight process for requesting outside input, and dispute resolution, with respect to article content, user conduct, and Wikipedia policy and guidelines.
A list of all current RFCs can be found at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/All (WP:RFC/A).
Contents |
[edit] Before requesting comment
- If your RFC pertains to a Wikipedia user, see Request comment on users. For everything else, see Request comment through talk pages. But first:
- Before asking outside opinion here, it generally helps to simply discuss the matter on the talk page first. Whatever the disagreement, the first step in resolving a dispute is to talk to the other parties involved.
- 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] 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. Discussion controls the outcome; it is not a matter of counting up the number of votes.
- 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 through talk pages
| Issues by topic area | ||
|---|---|---|
| Articles (main namespace) | ||
| Biographies | (watch) | {{rfctag|bio}} |
| Economy, trade, and companies | (watch) | {{rfctag|econ}} |
| History and geography | (watch) | {{rfctag|hist}} |
| Language and linguistics | (watch) | {{rfctag|lang}} |
| Maths, science, and technology | (watch) | {{rfctag|sci}} |
| Art, architecture, literature, and media | (watch) | {{rfctag|media}} |
| Politics, government, and law | (watch) | {{rfctag|pol}} |
| Religion and philosophy | (watch) | {{rfctag|reli}} |
| Society, sports, and culture | (watch) | {{rfctag|soc}} |
| Non-article pages | ||
| Wikipedia style and naming | (watch) | {{rfctag|style}} |
| Wikipedia policies and guidelines | (watch) | {{rfctag|policy}} |
| WikiProjects and collaborations | (watch) | {{rfctag|proj}} |
| Unsorted | ||
| Unsorted RFCs | (watch) | |
- Create a section for the RfC on the bottom of the disputed article's talk page; the section title should be neutral.
- Place one of the templates shown in the table on the right at the top of the new section. Fill out the template as follows: {{rfctag|category}} where "category" is the category abbreviation listed on the right. If you spell this category abbreviation incorrectly, use one that doesn't exist, or you leave it blank, then it will be added to the "Unsorted" list. Requests for comments in articles should be tagged for their main subject area(s), e.g., an RfC at the biography article for an artist should be tagged "bio" and "media". The "policy" category is for discussing changes to the WP:Policies and guidelines themselves, not for discussing how to apply the existing policies and guidelines to a specific article. Do not use subst:
- Include a brief, neutral statement of the issue below the template. Be sure to sign the statement with
~~~~ - Now you're done. A bot will take care of the rest, so be patient.
Or you can add it manually; see below.
Note that there is a Wikipedia proposals category as well as a Wikipedia policies and guidelines category. The proposals category, which can be used for proposals of all kinds, was created to help reduce the size of the policies category. For that reason, RFCs tagged as proposals should not also be tagged as policy RFCs.
[edit] Example use of Rfctag
Below is an example of how a completed RFC template in the "xxx" category and associated section heading might appear in a discussion page edit box before saving.
==RfC: Is Photo in History section relevant==
{{rfctag|xxx}}
Is the photograph in the "History" section relevant to the article? ~~~~
Note: Keep in mind, of course, that "xxx" is not an actual RFC abbreviation.
The bot will place all of the text before the signature line (which can be ~~~~ (sign with your name) or ~~~~~ (only the date)) onto the RfC page. If the description is more than a couple of sentences long, you might choose to provide a very brief summary, sign it (so the bot will list only that summary), and then continue with longer comments afterwards (which you should also sign with your name, although they will not be placed on the centralized RfC pages).
If you feel as though you cannot describe the dispute neutrally, ask someone else to write a summary for you.
If you are not certain in which area an issue belongs, pick the one that's closest, or inquire on Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment.
[edit] Adding an article RfC manually
To bypass the bot, go to the relevant subject page for your RfC, such as biographies or politics, government, and law (see the list above). On the page, click on "Manually added entries" and proceed from there. Link to the section of the article-talk page in which the RfC discussion will take place.
If you choose this option, please remember to remove the RfC request from the list when the conversation is finished.
[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.
- Disputes over article content, including disputes over how best to follow the neutral point of view policy, follow a different process.
- For a mild-to-moderate conflict, you might try Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts, a quick, simple way to get an outside view.
- Before requesting community comment, at least two editors must have contacted the user on the user's talk page, or the talk page(s) 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.
- 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. In most cases, editors named in an RfC are expected to respond to it. 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.
- An RfC cannot impose involuntary sanctions on a user, such as blocking or a topic ban; it is a tool for developing voluntary agreements and collecting information. (However that information may feed into subsequent dispute resolution which can lead to involuntary sanctions.)
User conduct RfCs are announced on the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard to encourage wide participation. Postings include a brief statement of the behavior in dispute.
[edit] Ending RfCs
RfCs that are listed by the RfC bot are also 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.
Manually added RfCs must be manually closed. This is accomplished by deleting the text that you added from the RfC page.
A request for comment on a user, however, needs to be closed manually. This should be done by an uninvolved editor.
[edit] See also
- Archives of user conduct disputes
- Special:Prefixindex/Wikipedia:Requests for comment, lists subpages of this page
- Wikipedia:Requests for comment/All – a listing of all current RFCs.
- Wikipedia:Requests for expansion when you want help expanding an article instead of help resolving a dispute (inactive)
