Wikipedia:Requests for comment
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- For a list of all current RFCs, see Requests for comment/All (WP:RFC/A).
 |
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. |
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. 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 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. 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] Instructions
| Issues 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) | {{RFCart}} |
| 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:
{{RFC [topic] | 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, so be patient. You will not know if your template is formatted correctly until the bot comes along, but to ensure accuracy make sure that the section specified does link to the anchored section on the talk page.
- To prevent a buildup of stale discussions, RFCs will be automatically removed from the lists after a period of thirty days. If you wish to extend the discussion, add a new timestamp so that it expires in an additional thirty days.
[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?
Note: Do not change these words: section= and reason= and time=. If any of those three template parameters are removed or changed, you will get an error from the bot. Mind the exclamation marks (!). The only parts of this example that you should change are these:
- "xxx" in the "RFCxxx" should be changed to the correct three- or four-letter code to specify the desired category.
- "RfC: Is Photo in History section relevant" should become the exact name of the specific section on the talk page. Do not include the name of the page itself.
- "Is the photograph in the "History" section relevant to the article?" should become your short summary.
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 at the help desk.
[edit] Request comment on policy and conventions
| Issues by topic area | ||
|---|---|---|
| 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.
- Users who are 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.
- 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.
- For a mild-to-moderate conflict, you might try Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts, a quick, simple way to get an outside view.
[edit] Ending RfCs
Most RfCs are automatically ended by the RfC bot after thirty days. (The expiration date is listed in the list of RfCs.) 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.
A request for comment on a user, however, needs to be closed manually. This should be done by an uninvolved editor.
[edit] See also
- Wikipedia:Requests for comment/All – a listing of all current RFCs.
- Archives of user conduct disputes
- Special:Prefixindex/Wikipedia:Requests for comment, lists subpages of this page
