Wikipedia:Requests for comment/How to present a case: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→Effective arguments: add wikilawyering |
→Expertise of the users: conduct, not topic, is usually the issue |
||
Line 33:
==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 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
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 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.▼
▲Content issues are complicated and take time to figure out. Other approaches may be
==Effective arguments==
| |||