Wikipedia:Requests for comment
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. Please note that there are other dispute resolution alternatives, notably the third opinion for disputes involving two editors as well as the reliable sources noticeboard and the neutral point of view noticeboard.
A list of all current RFCs can be found at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/All (WP:RFC/A).
An archive of (selected) past RFCs can be found at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Archive.
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 unregistered 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) | {{rfctag}} |
You could use the RfC posting tool, or:
- Place one of the templates shown in the table on the right at the top of the talk page section which you would like to promote. Do not use subst:.
- To add an additional category, do it like this: {{rfctag|category1|category2}}.
- Note that the "policy" category is for discussing changes to the policies and guidelines themselves, not for discussing how to apply the existing policies and guidelines to a specific article. The same approach also applies to "style" and "WikiProject" (the other non-article categories).
- 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.
- Include a brief, neutral statement of the issue below the template. Keep it simple and be clear about what the question is, so that the RfC attracts a clear and actionable response. Be sure to sign your statement with
~~~~Consider creating a separate section for threaded replies so the initial comments section does not become bogged down. - Now you're done. A bot will take care of the rest, so be patient.
As an alternative to request comment through talk pages, you may do so through Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Request board. Follow the directions on that page, and your request will be transferred to an appropriate location.
[edit] Example use of Rfctag
Below is an example of how a completed RFC template in the "hist" category and associated section heading might appear in a discussion page edit box before saving.
==RfC: Is Photo in History section relevant==
{{rfctag|hist}}
Is the photograph in the "History" section relevant to the article? ~~~~
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, please 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. You can also do your best, and invite others to improve your question or summary later.
If you are not certain in which area an issue belongs, pick the one that is closest, or inquire on Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment.
If an issue clearly overlaps two areas, you can list them both in the same tag; for example, an issue involving the history of science could be listed as {{Rfctag|hist|sci}}.
[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.
- While an RfC doesn't create sanctions, it may provide justification for them by collecting information, assessing consensus, and providing feedback to the subject. Sanctions may then be created separately through the administrative, community sanction, or arbitration processes.
The list of user conduct RfCs (along with a brief statement of the behaviors in dispute) are transcluded at the top of the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard to encourage wide participation. Separate postings at the noticeboard that announce user conduct RfCs should generally be avoided.
[edit] Ending RfCs
RfCs that are listed by the RfC bot are also automatically de-listed by the RfC bot after thirty days (calculated from the first timestamp after the RfC template). 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. If further time is wanted, any editor can change the first timestamp to a more recent date, which will prevent the bot from removing the listing.
Manually added RfCs must be manually closed. This is accomplished by deleting the text that you added from the RfC page.
All requests for comment on a user need to be closed manually. This should be done by an uninvolved editor (not necessarily an admin) when the dispute has been resolved, moved to any other forum, or seems unlikely to be resolved.
[edit] See also
| This page is referenced from the Wikipedia:Glossary. |  |
- Archives of user conduct disputes
- Special:Prefixindex/Wikipedia:Requests for comment, a list of all subpages of this page
- Wikipedia:Requests for comment/All, a listing of all current RFCs
- Wikipedia:Comment request service, sign up to receive requests on your user talk page to participate in RFCs
- Wikipedia:Requests, all other request departments
