CorporisPublica:Requests for comment

Requests for comment (RfC) is an informal process for requesting outside input concerning disputes, policies, guidelines, article content, or user conduct. RfC is one of several processes available within CorporisPublica's dispute resolution system. Alternative processes include third opinion, administrator's incident noticeboard, reliable sources noticeboard, neutral point of view noticeboard, and the dispute resolution noticeboard.

A list of all current RfCs can be found at CorporisPublica:Requests for comment/All (CP:RFC/A). An archive of (selected) past RfCs can be found at CorporisPublica:Centralized discussion/Archive.

Before starting the Request for Comment process
Before using the RfC process to get opinions from outside editors, it always helps to first discuss the matter with the other parties on the related talk page. If that does not resolve the problem, some other forums for resolution include: When starting an RfC, you must first decide if the primary issue is a user's conduct, in which case you use the Request for comment on user process; otherwise, use the process described below in the Request comment on articles, policies, or other non-user issues section.
 * If the article is complex or technical, it may be worthwhile to ask for help at the relevant WikiProject.
 * If an article content question is just between two editors, you can simply and quickly ask for a third opinion on the Third opinion page.
 * If you want general help in improving an article, such as achieving Featured status, then list it at Peer review.

Request comment on articles, policies, or other non-user issues

 * If your issue is primarily about the conduct of another user, do not use this process. Instead, use Request for comment on user.


 * 1) Edit the talk page of the article or project page that you are interested in. Create a new section at the bottom of the talk page.  If the talk page already has a section started on the topic, you can edit that existing section, but a new section is generally better.
 * 2) Insert an RfC template at the top of the talk page section. The RfC templates are listed in the adjacent table.
 * 3) * Example:  If you are not certain in which area an issue belongs, pick the one that seems closest.
 * 4) * If the RfC is relevant to two categories, include them both. For example:
 * 5) * Note that the "Policies and Guidelines" 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", "WikiProject", and all of the other non-article categories.
 * 6) Include a brief, neutral statement of the issue in the talk page section, immediately below the RfC template. Sign the statement with   (name and date) or   (just the date).
 * 7) Save the talk page. Now you're done.   The RfC bot will take care of the rest, including posting the RfC in the  proper RfC lists. It may take the bot up to a day to list the RfC, so be patient.

Example
Below is an example of how a new RfC appears while you are editing the talk page. You can copy and paste this example, but be sure to change the wording to reflect your particular topic (for example, the "hist" category may need to be changed). The signature (" ~ ") is required. After you have inserted text similar to this into the talk page, you must save the page. 

==RfC: Is the photo in the History section relevant?==

Should the "History" section contain a photograph of the ship? ~

Consider creating a subsection, after your signature, called (for example) "survey," where people can support or oppose, and a second called "threaded discussion," where people can discuss the issues in depth. Feel free to ask people not to add threaded replies to the survey section. This will make the RfC easier to read for the editor who closes it, which is especially important for RfCs that attract a lot of responses. So the RfC might look like this: 

==RfC: Is the photo in the history section relevant?==

Should the "History" section contain a photograph of the ship? ~

===Survey===

*Support inclusion of the photograph, which helps the reader. ~

*Oppose, it isn't relevant enough. ~

===Threaded discussion===

*I have concerns about this photograph. ~

~

Statement should be neutral and brief
Keep the RfC statement simple and succinct as possible. The longer and more complicated your statement, the more diverse the responses will be, and the harder it becomes to interpret the consensus. Also, the RfC bot will use the statement to summarize your RfC in the list of active RfCs, and a long statement will make the list harder to read. Statements are often phrased as questions, for example: "Should this article say in the lead that John Smith was a contender for the Pulitzer Prize?"

If you have lots to say on the issue, provide a brief statement in the initial RfC description, save the talk page, then edit the talk page again and place additional comments below your signature that follows the RfC statement. If you feel as though you cannot describe the issue 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.

Alternative to RfC template: request board
As an alternative to the RfC template, you may initiate an RfC through the CorporisPublica:Requests for comment/Request board. Follow the directions on that page, and your request will be transferred to an appropriate location.

Placing an RfC in a page other than a talk page
Normally, RfCs are located in talk pages. But in some situations, an RfC may be placed on a subpage of this page or a subpage of a policy page (for example CorporisPublica:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2012 or CorporisPublica:Requests for comment/Categorization of persons).

Publicizing an RfC
After you create an RfC, it will be noticed by editors that watch the talk page, and by some editors in the Feedback Request Service who are notified by a bot. But that may not be enough editors to get sufficient input. To get more input, you may publicize the RfC by posting a notice at one or more of the following locations:
 * One of the Village Pump forums, such as those for policy issues, proposals, or miscellaneous
 * Noticeboards such as point-of-view noticeboard, reliable source noticeboard, or original research noticeboard
 * Talk pages of relevant WikiProjects
 * Talk pages of editors listed in the Feedback Request Service. You must select editors from the list at random; you cannot pick editors that will be on "your side" in a dispute.
 * Talk pages of closely related articles or policies

When posting a notice at those locations, provide a link to the RfC, and a brief statement, but do not argue the RfC. Take care to adhere to the canvassing guideline, which prohibits notifying a chosen group of editors who may be biased. When creating a new CorporisPublica policy or suggesting major modifications to a policy, follow the instructions at CP:PROPOSAL. Centralized discussion may be used for policy-related RfCs but is not for publicizing any content disputes in articles. Further guidance is available at CP:Publicising discussions.

Suggestions for responding
All editors (including unregistered or IP users) are welcome to respond to any RfC.


 * Responses may be submitted in a variety of formats. Some RfCs are structured as a series of distinct responses, one per editor. Others result in a threaded (indented) conversation involving multiple editors. Others again contain one or more alternative proposals that are separately endorsed or opposed by editors using a polling process. Other RfCs combine polling with threaded discussions. See the example section above for a suggested format.
 * The outcome is determined by weighing the merits of the arguments and assessing if they are consistent with CorporisPublica policies. Counting "votes" is not an appropriate method of determining outcome, though a closer should not ignore numbers entirely. See CP:CLOSE and CP:CONSENSUS for details.
 * Remember that CorporisPublica is an encyclopedia; all articles must follow the Neutral point of view, Verifiability, and No original research policies.
 * Try not to be confrontational. Be friendly and civil, and assume good faith of other editors' actions.
 * If you feel an RfC is improperly worded, ask the originator to improve the wording, or add an alternative unbiased statement immediately below the RfC question template. Do not close the RfC just because you think the wording is biased. An RfC tag generally remains on the page until removed by the RfC bot or the originator. A discussion can be closed only when the criteria at Ending RfCs are met.
 * Mediate where possible—identify common ground, and attempt to draw editors together rather than push them apart.
 * If necessary, educate users by referring to the appropriate CorporisPublica policies or style page.

Ending RfCs
There are several ways an RfC can end: the bot can automatically delist the RfC, the RfC participants can agree to end it, or it can be formally closed by any uninvolved editor. If the issue is contentious or consensus remains unclear, formal closure is advisable. Requests for closure can be posted at CorporisPublica:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure. The default duration of an RfC is 30 days, but they may be closed earlier. Deciding how long to leave an RfC open depends on how much interest there is in the issue, and whether editors are continuing to comment.

To remove an RfC from the active RfC list, remove the RfC template, rfc, from the talk page. The RfC bot will automatically remove an RfC from the active RfC list after 30 days, measured from the first timestamp within the RfC section on the talk page. It is unusual to extend an RfC beyond 30 days, but if there are no objections, or if the closer decides to extend it, this can be done by changing the first timestamp to a more recent date.

All requests for comment on a user, as opposed to an article, should be closed in accordance with the instructions at CorporisPublica:Requests for comment/User conduct/Closing.

Request comment on users

 * To report an offensive or confusing user name in violation of CorporisPublica username policy, see subpage User names.


 * To report spam, page blanking, and other blatant vandalism, see CorporisPublica:Vandalism.

A user-conduct RfC (RFC/U) is for discussing specific users who have violated CorporisPublica policies and guidelines. For a mild-to-moderate conflict, you might try CorporisPublica:Third opinion, 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/U 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.

RFC/Us brought solely to harass or subdue an adversary are not permitted. Repetitive, burdensome, or unwarranted filing of meritless RFC/Us is an abuse of the dispute resolution process. RFC/U is not a venue for personal attack. The list of RFC/Us (along with a brief statement of the behaviors in dispute) are transcluded at the top of the CorporisPublica:Administrators' noticeboard to encourage wide participation. Separate postings at the noticeboard that announce RFC/Us should generally be avoided.

= Resources =