| Revision as of 20:55, 13 September 2005 editFuelWagon (talk | contribs)5,956 edits →User-conduct RfC: simplify instructions← Previous edit | Revision as of 21:35, 13 September 2005 edit undoJayjg (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators134,922 editsm Reverted edits by FuelWagon to last version by MaurreenNext edit → | ||
| Line 22: | Line 22: | ||
| * For disputes over user conduct, before requesting community comment, at least two people should 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 will 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. | * For disputes over user conduct, before requesting community comment, at least two people should 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 will 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. | ||
| * |
* An RfC may be the first step toward arbitration, which can bring punitive actions against an editor. '''It is therefore not a step to be taken lightly'''. | ||
| * While an RfC may be the first step toward arbitration, it's important to remember that it is a part of the '''dispute resolution''' process. It isn't paperwork to be filled out simply so that those who filed it can move on to arbitration. If you file an RfC, try to resolve the dispute so that there's no need for arbitration. Better still, try to resolve the dispute before it reaches the RfC stage. | |||
| * An RfC filed in good faith might be from an editor attempting to resolve a dispute by airing differences and inviting outside comments, if s/he has been unable to solve it in any other way. But even an RFC filed in good faith may be viewed as the first step toward arbitration and punitive measures, so be aware of the possible reaction you may receive, and make that part of your decision as to whether to file or not. | |||
| * An RfC filed in bad faith would include an editor using the RFC process to make false accusations of policy violations, and then getting their friends to help certify the RFC, or finding people who have had arguments elsewhere with the accused, and inviting them to certify or endorse the RfC in an attempt to snowball the process. An RFC will not "convict" an editor of violating policy. It is intended to be a way to resolve disputes between editors who have tried but failed to resolve them in some other way. | |||
| ===Alternatives to RfC=== | ===Alternatives to RfC=== | ||
Revision as of 21:35, 13 September 2005
Shortcut- ]
- For general comments and feedback, use Misplaced Pages:Village pump, and choose the proper subsection.
Ultimately, the content of Misplaced Pages is determined by making progress toward a community consensus. However, the size of Misplaced Pages prevents community members from actively following every development. As a result, sometimes it's useful to request broader opinions from the rest of the community.
This page is a way that anyone can request other Wikipedians to help them resolve difficulties and disputes in articles or talk pages. Anyone may visit any of these articles, to help them reach agreement. A good quality RfC can help contributors resolve differences, add different insights, give comments and opinions on how others might see some wording, and so on. When listing a dispute here, you should also place a notice on the appropriate talk page.
It will help the RFC process if everyone who lists something on this page tries to help out at least one other page listed here.
| Dispute resolution (Requests) |
|---|
| Tips |
| Content disputes |
| Conduct disputes |
Overview
When to use an article RfC
RFC is appropriate when you want other Wikipedians to visit the page, to allow a consensus or a better quality of decision, to help resolve a dispute or break a deadlock.
Before adding an entry here:
- Whatever the nature of the dispute, the first resort should always be to discuss the problem with the other user. Try to resolve the dispute on your own first.
- Don't forget to follow Wikiquette. Wikiquette is more important in resolving a dispute, not less.
User-conduct RfC
To read the current user-conduct RfCs, go to Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/User conduct. Old RfCs are kept in Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/User conduct disputes archive. If you intend to file an RfC, please read the following carefully before doing so.
- For disputes over user conduct, before requesting community comment, at least two people should 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 will 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.
- An RfC may be the first step toward arbitration, which can bring punitive actions against an editor. It is therefore not a step to be taken lightly.
- While an RfC may be the first step toward arbitration, it's important to remember that it is a part of the dispute resolution process. It isn't paperwork to be filled out simply so that those who filed it can move on to arbitration. If you file an RfC, try to resolve the dispute so that there's no need for arbitration. Better still, try to resolve the dispute before it reaches the RfC stage.
- An RfC filed in good faith might be from an editor attempting to resolve a dispute by airing differences and inviting outside comments, if s/he has been unable to solve it in any other way. But even an RFC filed in good faith may be viewed as the first step toward arbitration and punitive measures, so be aware of the possible reaction you may receive, and make that part of your decision as to whether to file or not.
- An RfC filed in bad faith would include an editor using the RFC process to make false accusations of policy violations, and then getting their friends to help certify the RFC, or finding people who have had arguments elsewhere with the accused, and inviting them to certify or endorse the RfC in an attempt to snowball the process. An RFC will not "convict" an editor of violating policy. It is intended to be a way to resolve disputes between editors who have tried but failed to resolve them in some other way.
Alternatives to RfC
- If the dispute involves allegations that a user has engaged in serious violations of Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines, create a subpage for the dispute. Use the subpage to elaborate on the allegations.
- If you are in deadlock with just one other user, consider getting a third opinion.
- For a mild-to-moderate conflict, you might try Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette alerts. Wikiquette alerts are an option for a quick, streamlined way to get an outside view. The goal is to nip potential problems in the bud.
- To request votes instead of comments, consider a listing on Misplaced Pages:Current Surveys.
- If you want help in getting an article up to Featured status, then list it at Peer review. Note that Peer review is not for listing content disputes.
How to use RfC
- To request other users to comment on an issue, add a link to the Talk page for the article, a brief neutral statement of the issue, and the date.
- Only with the date, don't list the details, and don't submit arguments or assign blame.
- On the Talk page of the article, it can help to summarize the dispute.
Responding to RfCs
- Try not to be confrontational. Be friendly and keep calm.
- 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 Misplaced Pages policies.
List
Article content disputes
List links to talk pages where participants cannot reach consensus and are thus stalling progress on the article, on one of the subpages listed below. Discussions with no recent comments may have dried up, and will be removed.
- Do not put any issues on this page.
- Link to the Talk page.
- Sign entries with the date only. Use five tildes: ∼∼∼∼∼.
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 think the current topic areas are confusing or insufficient (or too broad or too narrow), please discuss this at the RFC talk page. If you believe an issue to be miscategorized, please move it to the appropriate section. If you're not sure which place an issue belongs, you can put it in two places if you want, but please don't crosspost further than that.
| Economy and trade | (watch) | (add entry) |
| History and geography | (watch) | (add entry) |
| Language and linguistics | (watch) | (add entry) |
| Media, art and literature | (watch) | (add entry) |
| Philosophy | (watch) | (add entry) |
| Politics | (watch) | (add entry) |
| Religion | (watch) | (add entry) |
| Math, natural science and technology | (watch) | (add entry) |
| Society, law and sex | (watch) | (add entry) |
| If NONE of the above apply | (watch) | (add entry) |
| Misplaced Pages style, layout and consistency | (watch) | (add entry) |
| WikiProjects | (watch) | (add entry) |
| Misplaced Pages policies, guidelines and proposals | (watch) | (add entry) |
User conduct and naming
| User conduct and misuse of admin privileges | (watch) | (add entry) |
| Offensive or confusing user names | (watch) | (add entry) |