Imagine you've spent hours arguing in a talk page about whether a specific sentence should stay or go. The editor on the other side thinks you're biased; you think they're ignoring the sources. You are stuck. This is where a Request for comment is a structured forum on Wikipedia used to gather broader community input when local editors fail to reach a consensus. It moves the debate from a two-person standoff to a wider audience, but only if done right. Many editors treat an RfC as a vote. That is a mistake. It is not a poll. It is a tool to break deadlocks by inviting neutral perspectives. If you draft it poorly, you will get more noise than signal. If you close it incorrectly, you risk being accused of bias. Let’s walk through exactly how to navigate this process without losing your mind or your reputation.
When to Actually Use an RfC
Before you open a new tab and start typing, ask yourself: do we really need this? An RfC is a heavy hammer. Don't use it to crack a nut. You should consider an RfC when:- You have been discussing an issue with another editor for at least three days with no progress.
- The dispute involves a significant change to article content, structure, or categorization.
- Both parties agree that the current state is unsatisfactory but cannot agree on the fix.
- The topic is too complex for a simple edit war or revert cycle.
Drafting the Perfect Request
The quality of your draft determines the quality of the responses. A bad title invites bias. A vague question invites confusion. Title Structure Keep it neutral and descriptive. Avoid loaded language like "Bias against X" or "Obvious error in Y." Instead, use formats like:- Article Name: Dispute over [specific section/topic]
- Article Name: Question regarding [specific claim/fact]
- Background: Briefly explain what happened. Who edited what? Why was it reverted? Keep it under 100 words.
- The Options: Clearly list the possible outcomes. Option A, Option B, Option C. Do not hide your preference in the wording, but present all viable solutions equally.
- Your Position: State which option you prefer and why, citing specific guidelines (like WP:V or WP:N).
- The Question: Ask a direct question. "Which option best aligns with our sourcing standards?"
Managing the Discussion Phase
Once posted, your job shifts from advocate to moderator. This is the hardest part. Do not reply to every comment immediately. Give people time to read and think. However, you must monitor the thread. If someone accuses you of bias, respond calmly with facts, not emotions. If the discussion drifts off-topic, politely steer it back to the specific question asked. A common pitfall is "scope creep." Someone might start talking about a completely different aspect of the article. Gently remind them: "Let's keep this focused on the sourcing for the award list, as per the title." Also, watch out for "drive-by" comments. These are users who jump in with strong opinions but rarely engage in detailed discussion. While their votes count toward the general sentiment, weigh their arguments based on their contribution history and depth of reasoning.
Closing the RfC: The Art of Consensus
This is where most editors make mistakes. Closing an RfC is not about counting heads. It is about synthesizing the conversation. After 7-14 days (depending on the volume of discussion), you need to close the thread. Here is the step-by-step process:- Read All Comments: Read every single response, including the short ones. Look for patterns, not just majority opinion.
- Identify the Consensus: Is there a clear winner? Or did the community split? Sometimes, the consensus is "keep the status quo" because no alternative gained enough traction.
- Write the Summary: Start with "Closed as..." followed by the outcome. Then, briefly explain *why*. Quote key arguments from neutral editors. Acknowledge dissenting views if they were well-reasoned.
- Apply the Change: Make the edit to the article immediately after posting the closure. Do not wait.
- Tag the Thread: Add the appropriate template (e.g., {{Rfc closed}}) to indicate the discussion is over.
Common Pitfalls to Avoid
Even experienced editors stumble here. Watch out for these traps:- Preaching: Do not tell others how to answer. Just ask the question.
- Ignoring Opponents: If the opposing editor makes a good point, acknowledge it. Ignoring them looks arrogant.
- Time Pressure: Don't rush the closure. A rushed summary often misses nuance. Better to extend the deadline by a few days than close prematurely.
- Self-Interest: If you are heavily invested in the outcome, consider asking a neutral third party to close it. This removes any suspicion of bias.
Comparison: RfC vs. Other Dispute Resolution Tools
Knowing when *not* to use an RfC is just as important as knowing when to use it. Here is how it stacks up against other tools:| Method | Best For | Duration | Outcome Type |
|---|---|---|---|
| Talk Page Discussion | Minor disagreements, quick fixes | Hours to Days | Mutual agreement |
| Request for comment | Stalled discussions, need for neutral input | 7-14 Days | Community consensus |
| Mediation (WP:RM) | Personal conflicts, repeated edit wars | Weeks to Months | Facilitated agreement |
| Arbitration (WP:ARB) | Severe misconduct, unresolvable disputes | Months | Binding ruling |
Frequently Asked Questions
Who can close a Request for comment?
Ideally, the person who opened it. However, if the opener is perceived as biased, any active editor can close it. Many experienced editors volunteer to close difficult RfCs to ensure neutrality. There is no formal requirement, but transparency is key.
What happens if there is no clear consensus?
If opinions are split evenly, the default is usually to keep the status quo. Changing the article requires a stronger push than maintaining it. You can also propose a compromise solution that addresses the core concerns of both sides, even if it wasn't explicitly listed as an option initially.
Can I edit the article while the RfC is open?
Generally, no. You should freeze the disputed section until the RfC closes. If you feel urgent changes are needed (like fixing vandalism), make those separate edits but tag them clearly so they aren't confused with the disputed content.
How long should an RfC run?
Standard practice is 7 to 14 days. For high-profile articles, 14 days is safer to allow time for global editors to see it. For minor disputes, 7 days is sufficient. Extend if the discussion is still active and productive.
Is an RfC a binding decision?
No, it is not legally binding. However, it carries significant weight. Reopening a settled RfC without new evidence is frowned upon. Treat the closure as a strong recommendation that the community expects to be respected for at least six months.
