| Frequently asked questions
- The RFC question isn't neutral!
- Wikipedians are rarely swayed by a non-neutral question. They've got their own minds and they'll come to their own conclusions. A non-neutral question might be a good reason to fix the question, but it is not grounds to halt or re-start the RFC. If you believe that a question is non-neutral, you are better off simply participating in the RFC to present arguments about the underlying dispute. An additional comment about the question's neutrality may or may not be appropriate, depending on its relevance to those arguments.
- The RFC question is not brief. Can I fix it?
- The "question" is the part that shows up on the RFC listing pages (example of listing page). If the RFC question itself is substantially longer than all the others and you are not appearing in the role of the loyal opposition, then you can copy a small part the original question plus the original timestamp (not usually the name) to the top or write a simplified question. If, however, the person who started the RFC discussion might consider you to be part of the dispute, you should ask someone else to adjust it (e.g., by asking the person who started the RFC to shorten it or by posting a note on the RFC talk page).
- I don't like any of the options I've been asked to vote for.
- RFCs aren't votes. You can suggest a compromise or an option that others haven't considered, exactly like you would in any other talk page discussion.
- How long should an RFC last?
- As long as all of the participants need, and no longer. If you started an RFC, and you believe other editors will not agree to your proposal, then you are permitted to admit defeat and withdraw it at any time. However, editors who believe their side is winning are advised to not even mention the possibility of ending an RFC early during the first week.
- Is the result of an RFC binding?
- Not inherently, but an RFC is usually an effective way of determining the consensus of editors, which is binding. The formal closing summary of an RFC is generally considered to be a summary of the current consensus, although consensus can change over time.
- Aren't all RFCs supposed to get a formal closing summary?
- No. Most of the time, the result is clear to all of the participants, and editors should not waste the community's time by asking someone else to officially write down what everyone already knows. Only a minority of RFCs get closing summary statements.
- Can the person who started the RFC, or another involved editor, write a summary of the discussion?
- Yes. In particular, when a proposal is soundly rejected, proponents are encouraged to accept defeat with grace. However, if the outcome could plausibly be disputed, then involved editors (on all sides of a dispute) are encouraged to let someone else write a summary.
- There was an RFC a long time ago, but we're doing something different now. Do we have to hold a second RFC to officially over-rule the old RFC?
- No. Consensus can change, and an RFC is not required to prove that the community's consensus has changed. However, even though having another RFC is technically optional, it might still be a good idea, especially if there is a current dispute.
- How many RFCs are there?
- As of 2024, there are usually about two RFCs started each day. Before 2021, there were about three new RFCs each day.
- How many people comment in RFCs?
- The number of respondents varies depending on the subject area and the amount of effort needed to answer the question (e.g., higher for popular articles, lower for highly technical questions). It's not unusual to see about five to 20 people participate in a discussion, with a possible range from zero responses to (rarely) several hundred.
|
