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

Revision as of 01:53, 11 June 2008

Revision as of 01:41, 12 June 2008

Line 34:

==Expertise of the users==

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 — in general, we have looked unfavorably upon people who are using Wikipedia as a platform for advocacy, as well as people who allegeaccuse Wikipedia of offering safe haven for a conspiracy to suppress their point of view.

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.

Content issues are complicated and take time to figure out. Other approaches may be indicated. 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 none of the cases which fail resolution at RFC and become Arbitration cases have actually required careful attention to content issues in order to get the necessary result.

==Effective arguments==