Wikipedia:Requests for comment
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- WP:RFC redirects here. You may be looking for Wikipedia:Request for checkuser (WP:RFCU).
Requests for comment (RfC) are the open part of the dispute resolution process, by which editors can seek broad input regarding disputes over article content, user conduct, and Wikipedia policy and guidelines.
All editors are welcome to help resolve disputes by responding to RfCs. It will help the RfC process if everyone who lists an RfC tries to help out at least one other page listed.
| Wikipedia policies |
|---|
| Article standards |
|
Neutral point of view |
| Working with others |
Contents |
[edit] Responding to RfCs
All editors are welcome to provide comment to assist in reaching agreements or to provide their opinions by responding to requests for comment on an article discussion page. Remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia; all articles and policies must follow Neutral point of view, Verifiability, and No original research. This is not a vote.
- 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.
- On user conduct RfCs, do not create "disendorsement" sections on RfCs. If you disagree with something someone else has said, you may add your own separate statement explaining why you disagree. Do not create a "Users who do not agree with this summary" section, or the equivalent. This tends to be a confrontational act that is not productive.
To comment, jump to section for RfCs on articles, users, or policies and conventions.
[edit] Request comment on articles
| Issues by topic area | ||
|---|---|---|
| Further instructions are on the topic pages | ||
| Biographies | (watch) | (add entry) |
| Economy, trade, and companies | (watch) | (add entry) |
| History and geography | (watch) | (add entry) |
| Language and linguistics | (watch) | (add entry) |
| Maths, science, and technology | (watch) | (add entry) |
| Art, architecture, literature and media | (watch) | (add entry) |
| Politics | (watch) | (add entry) |
| Religion and philosophy | (watch) | (add entry) |
| Society, law, and sex | (watch) | (add entry) |
An RfC on article content is for helping to develop consensus or for gaining an outside perspective to help settle a deadlocked disagreement or make a better decision. Note that all Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view and must include only verifiable information, with no original research..
Before adding an entry here:
- Do not post an RfC before working towards a resolution with other article contributors first. Whatever the disagreement, the first step in resolving a dispute is to talk to the other parties involved. Be civil, and assume good faith in other editors' actions.
- Consider getting a third opinion on a controversy that involves only two editors.
- If you want general help in improving an article, such as to Featured status, then list it at Peer review. Note that peer review is not for content disputes.
- Consider consulting the relevant WikiProject, especially for expert subjects like at WikiProject Mathematics. For disputes over implementing Wikipedia policy, consider consulting the relevant policy, guideline, or style page.
[edit] Instructions
- Create a section for the RfC on the bottom of the article talk page with a brief, neutral statement of the issue. Example
- In the relevant topic area listed above right, link to that section on the Talk page.
- Sign entries with the date only. Use five tildes: ~~~~~.
- After all parties agree the issue has been resolved, strike it from the listing.
Please also include the title of the article in dispute in the edit 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 an issue is miscategorized, please move it to the appropriate section. If you are not certain in which area an issue belongs, you can put it in two places if you want, but do not post the same issue more than twice. 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 is active, you may repost.
[edit] Request comment on users
| User-related issues | ||
|---|---|---|
| Further instructions are on each page | ||
| User conduct | (watch) | (add entry) |
| Offensive or confusing 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 that is the subject of an RfC should be notified on his 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, and can lead to binding arbitration. Filing an RfC is therefore not a step to be taken lightly or in haste.
- Disputes over the writing of articles, 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] Request comment on policy and conventions
| General policy and convention issues | ||
|---|---|---|
| Further instructions are on each page | ||
| Wikipedia style, referencing, layout and WikiProjects | (watch) | (add entry) |
| Wikipedia policies, guidelines and proposals | (watch) | (add entry) |
A policy or guideline RfC is for requesting comment on proposed policies and guidelines or proposed revisions to existing policies and guidelines. A style RfC is for requesting comment on style issues in articles, or for proposals on new or revised recommendations in the Wikipedia:Manual of Style. Policy and proposals are also listed at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion and are also discussed at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) and Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals).
With such proposals, remember the Five pillars that fundamentally define Wikipedia's character. Remember the three content policies whose principles are absolute and non-negotiable: Neutral point of view, Verifiability, and No original research. Also, remember What Wikipedia is not.
There is also a list of current Wikipedia proposals at Category:Wikipedia proposals.
[edit] See also
- Archives of user conduct disputes
- Special:Prefixindex/Wikipedia:Requests for comment, lists subpages of this page
