- A request for adminship is open for discussion.
- An open letter regarding the Wikimedia Foundation's potential disclosure of editors' personal information is collecting signatures.
- Should it be a requirement for all administrators seeking resysop to have completed their last administrative action within the previous five years?
- Extended-confirmed pending changes and preemptive protection in contentious topics
- Are portals encyclopedic, and are they appropriate redirect targets?
- Should recall petitions be limited to signatures only?
- Nominations for the Arbitration Committee elections
- Should the length of a recall petition be shortened?
This RFC is now closed.
This is a request for comment regarding unsourced content about living people.
All content that is about living people is governed by the WP:BLP policy, against a background of WP:V, WP:NPOV, and other policies and guidelines that affect article content generally.
The current text of policy, which has been in place since about 2007, echoes Jimbo Wales' instruction to "remove immediately and without waiting for discussion" the following:
- Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced
Removals of such content have been considered exempt from the policy against edit warring and the three-revert rule.
Recently some disagreement has arisen over what "contentious" means, whether to retain that word at all, and how to resolve differences among editors as to whether a given piece of information is contentious or adequately sourced.
This RfC is an attempt to assess community consensus on the question in light of recent unresolved disputes on the matter.