Wikipedia:Requests for comment/How to present a case: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 11:18, 3 May 2006

Latest revision as of 00:36, 7 August 2017

(26 intermediate revisions by 15 users not shown)

Line 1:

{{Information page|WP:RFC/HOW}}

{{essay}}

Please note that this guide is descriptive, not normative. That is to say, it is explicitly uninteresteddoes innot sortingdeal outwith the ongoing controversy over how the community and those involved in RFCs should behave. It is based on empirical observation of what arguments have worked and whatwhich ones have not, as well as upon discussions with editors about what they pay attention to.

There are three very important things to realize about RFCs.:

#They are a request for comments, to the entire world, not a court hearing;

#Product is much more important than process.

#If they do not resolve the situation, they may lead to ArbCom cases (see corresponding[[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide essay onto arbitration|ArbCom's casesguide to arbitration]]).

Almost everything you need to know about making or responding to an RFC is an extension of one of those twothree facts.

The absolute best way to fare well in an RFC is to not do things wrong. If you are trolling, actively POV pushing, or generally being an [[WP:DICK|asshole]], there is no guide in the world that can help you. Don't do that.

Line 15:

==The perception of your case==

At any time, there are twenty or more active cases in Arbitration, almost 200 closed ones, a stack in mediation and a handful of RFCs under way. Individuals cannot keep close track of eachall of these. If you mention a user anything to a user not intimately involved in the current process, they are not likely to remember particular details of the argument or which POV that user was advocating.

Write your evidence and your proposals so that they help jog everyone's memories. Assume that every time a user pulls up the RFC page, or the discussion page, they won't remember what was concluded last time or elsewhere. They are not clueless -– but they need information.

==What users will and won't look at==

RFC pages, and their discussions, can getbecome very long. Nobody has time to read through 100 KB evidence pages, and they especially don't have time to reread them after they've forgotten what was what.

Don't let your page get to 100 KB. Be concise, be direct, be clear. You do not need to cross every t, dot every i, and show every single instance of aan given user being a problemissue — doing so can be counterproductive. Pick the clearest examples you can, and present them with as little commentary as is necessary.

==Context ==

Users do not read up on disputes that might reach RFC eventually. It is very unlikely that they know the history of the dispute goingwhen inthey —arrive. thatTry someoneto isprovide akey knowncontext advocatewhere appropriate. Examples of akey pointcontext ofmay view,include thatany someonerealated hasRFC/AFD/etc, aagreement historyon part of defendingthe problem usersand specifying where discussions broke down, or thata everybodyknown whohistory hasof everviewpoint dealtadvocacy withby amembers userof recognizesspecific themnation to be aor completeother lunaticgroup. Point these things out to them. If you point to an edit that comes after a month of heated discussion, it may not make sense to someone who was not a part of that discussion.

If you point to an edit that comes after a month of heated discussion, it may not make sense to someone who was not a part of that discussion. Take care with evidence that requires context. If there is better evidence for the same point, use that instead. Otherwise, be ready to explain the context. Note that the more explanation a piece of evidence requires, the less likely anyneanyone is to have time to pay attention to it.

== Meta-discussion ==

==Expertise of the users==

Questions about the conduct of RFCs -– the process in general -– are best taken to a sympathetic forum elsewhere, as if they are placed on the talk or RFC page they may have an unfortunate appearance of wiki-lawyering and prevarication - see above.

==Requesting Admin intervention instead==

Most users are not subject experts, but some are. This is why RFCs unlike ArbCom cases may come to conclusions on content. In practice, users are likely to be cautious about basing a ruling on the grounds that one side is right in a content dispute. There are exceptions to this - in general, we have looked unfavorably on people who are using Wikipedia as a platform for advocacy, and people who allege a conspiracy to suppress their point of view. The exact relationship between this and particular minority points of view is subtle.

In some cases an individual, or a small number of individuals, are being disruptive. It may be more appropriate to go to [[WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents|Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents]] to requesting a warning, topic ban, block, or page protection. Much of the advice given above about RFCs also applies to writing a request for Administrator intervention. The advice below is mostly relevant to requesting Administrator intervention. <small>(It probably be rewritten to explicitly address Administrator requests rather than RFCs.)</small>

Content issues are complicated and take time to figure out. Other approaches may be indiated. Instead of arguing that somebody is advancing a nutty conspiracy theory with no credibility, find statements on talk pages where they express a desire to advocate a cause, instances of them removing well-sourced information, instances of them accusing those who disagree with them of conspiracy, and other more concrete and self-explanatory things. Almost nonoe of the cases which fail resolution at RFC and become AC cases have actually required careful attention to content issues to get the necessary result.

===Expertise of the users===

==Effective arguments==

Most users are not subject experts, but some are. This is why RFCs, unlike ArbCom cases, may come to conclusions on the basis of article content. In practice, users are likely to be cautious about basing a ruling on the groundsground that one side is right in a content dispute. There are exceptions to this - inthis—in general, we have looked unfavorably onupon people who are using Wikipedia as a platform for advocacy, andas well as people who allegeaccuse a conspiracy to suppress their pointWikipedia of view.offering Thesafe exacthaven relationshipfor betweena thisconspiracy andto particularsuppress minoritytheir pointspoint of view is subtle.

Wikipedia is not collectively hostile toward the documenting of minority views—only toward those who break fundamental Wikipedia principles (such as neutrality and personal attack policies) in their edits relating to such views.

The community generally considers that the Wikipedia method works, that Wikipedia is on the whole a successful project, that admins are generally trustworthy. They explicitly choose any outcome that results in Wikipedia working better.

Content issues are complicated and take time to figure out. Other approaches may be indiatedindicated. Instead of arguingmaking the argument that somebody is advancing a nutty conspiracy theory withthat has no credibility, find statements on talk pages where they express a desire to advocate a cause, instances of them removing well-sourced information, instances of them accusing those who disagree with them of conspiracy, and other more concrete and self-explanatory things. Almost nonoenone of the cases which fail resolution at RFC and become ACArbitration cases have actually required careful attention to content issues in order to get the necessary result.

Arguments opposing Wikipedia's basic principles, suggesting a massive cabal of rogue admins, or holding the process to be an end in itself will not work.

===Effective arguments===

The community generally considersbelieves that the Wikipedia method works,; that Wikipedia is, on the whole, a successful project, and that admins are generally trustworthy. They explicitly choose any outcome that resultswill result in Wikipedia working better.

ArgumentsPursuing opposingarguments that oppose Wikipedia's basic principles, suggesting the existence of a massive cabal of rogue admins, or holdingtreating the dispute resolution process toas if it bewere an end in itself will not work.

It is mistaken to argue on the assumption that an RFC functions like a court of law. See [[Wikipedia:Wikilawyering]].

Arguing about flaws in the Mediation and RFC process is usually a waste of time and will make editors, admins, and eventually Arbitrators look dimly upon you. Take the time that you could spend arguing about the details of the process and apply it to trying to gather useful evidence. The first to try to rules-lawyer the arbitration process invariably loses &mdash; because they wouldn't be rules-lawyering if they had a case, and ththe esamesame may be taken to be true of RFCs, with the addition that rules-lawyering an RFC tends to predict the progression of the case to ArbCom, and might reasonably also be used as a cue to take it there, rather than waiting for tardy responses to be completed.

===Discussion===

Clear and persuasive presentation of evidence will almost always be more effective than whatwhatever is said on the talk pages. Almost nothing useful ever comes out of argumentsany argument between and among parties on the talk pages. The chance of anythingany arguedargument being made on other pages getting noticed or being cared about drops dramatically the longer or the more numerous theythose arguments get. If you must engage in discussion, short and simple and on the RFC talk page is probably the most effective approach.

[[Category:Wikipedia how-to|RFC/How to present a case]]

== Meta-discussion ==

Questions about the conduct of RFCs - the process in general - are best taken to a sympathetic forum elsewhere, as if they are placed on the talk or RFC page they may have an unfortunate appearance of wiki-lawyering and prevarication - see above.