Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/International Churches of Christ/Proposed decision

Arbitrators active on this case

 * To update this listing, edit this template and scroll down until you find the right list of arbitrators.

Problematic editing
How is FOF 3 not a content ruling? "edits reflecting a biased point of view and advocacy", "replacement of reliable sources with less reliable ones". Deciding what is and isn't NPOV and deciding which sources are and aren't reliable is what content is all about. If you're making decisions on those two points then what content issues aren't you willing to consider? 87.254.69.81 (talk) 21:08, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It's a question of degrees. Suppose we were talking about the George W. Bush article. Our opinions might vary widely about what should be the content of the article, but everyone would agree that "George W. Bush is a good president" or "George W. Bush is a bad president" are POV. Similarly, we could agree that taking out a link to a biography of Bush by a reputable historian and replacing it with a link to a partisan blog would be a less reliable source, at least for most purposes. So, it is possible to make these sorts of findings without trenching into content decisions. Whether the criticism is fair in a given case is, of course, a different issue. Hope this helps. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:35, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your answer. Obviously there are questions of degrees when making content decisions but that doesn't stop them being content decisions. What you seem to mean is that some content decisions are very clear cut and that you're willing to make those content decisions, but not finer ones. Is that a fair summary? Saying that you can do so "without trenching into content decisions" makes no sense to me at all. As you point out, I'm sure we could agree on any number of content issues. I just don't get how that makes them no longer issues of content. 87.254.69.81 (talk) 07:01, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * To be clear myself, what I'm looking for here is plain speaking. If you say that you don't make content decisions then it should be clear what that means without looking it up in the great dictionary of wikipedianisms. If you mean that you make decisions about content but you only do so when you consider them to be very clear cut, then it would be best to look for a form of words that says so e.g. "Arbcom only makes decisions about content where it considers the correct decision to be clear cut". 87.254.69.81 (talk) 07:18, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that we make content decision sometimes but do not agree with the way that you frame them in your above remarks. Sometimes "content decisions" are a byproduct of our rulings. But the Arbitration Committee does not write our rulings with the intention of making a content decision. We do a good job of sticking to ruling on user conduct, I think.


 * In an indirect way, our ruling often change the content of articles. Stopping edit wars and encouraging consensus discussions makes the content of articles more stable and hopefully moves it toward the quality of good general reference.


 * Less often our Committee rulings directly change the content. For example, if we might rule that an user is frequently adding copyrighted material to the Project. This is an user conduct issue, but we must look at the content of the articles before we can decide whether the allegations against the user are true or false. As a byproduct of banning the user, a user conduct remedy, we are making a content ruling as well. Does thinking about it this way help? FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 11:50, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Link to relevant evidence talk page discussion
Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/International Churches of Christ/Evidence has a discussion about the need of one of the involved parties for assistance due to difficulty understanding English. An offer of help has been given that I think is compatible with our existing ruling. I'm going to make that my working assumption unless I hear otherwise. If this is not the case, I hope the involved parties will let us know soon. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 11:22, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Discussion about need for assistance translating arbitration case after reminded of need to provide evidence.
 * Also a link to a talk page post about the case by TransylvanianKarl on Nyenyec's talk page. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 11:28, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: "Additional findings" in proposed findings of fact
Would strongly prefer if the word "norms" was replaced with "procedures" (or something to that effect) to avoid misinterpretation. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:15, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I like the word "norms". Part of working well in the Community is understanding that Wikipedia English is a collaborative project that uses a consensus discussion model for decision making. Our policies and procedure come from this philosophy. This philosophy means our community has different "norms" of behavior than other settings where other approaches to decisions making exist.


 * That said, feel free to suggest alternative wording that conveys the meaning better. I'm always happy to tweak the wording if the meaning is unclear. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 11:24, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with what is meant, but I disagree with use of that particular word here because of how easily it could be misinterpreted. The word 'norms' relies (to some extent, quite heavily) on ones version of what is considered 'normal' - this may pose problems. For example, it is no secret that there are some editors that unfortunately do not follow, or overlook certain policies and procedures (including consensus building). Some of them find it not just normal to behave this way, but to constantly get away with it over an extended period of time under some guise or another. Others find it a behavioural norm because they have not properly understood the policies, guidelines and procedures. In that sense, I think more clarity is needed, whether through some other wording, or some of the wording you have used (but more formalized). Momentarily, I don't have any other suggestions for alternative wording. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:41, 9 April 2008 (UTC)