Wikipedia talk:Arbitrating on content

Essays Low‑impact

	This page is within the scope of WikiProject Wikipedia essays, a collaborative effort to organise and monitor the impact of Wikipedia essays. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion. For a listing of essays see the essay directory.EssaysWikipedia:WikiProject EssaysTemplate:WikiProject EssaysWikiProject Wikipedia essays pages
Low	This page has been rated as Low-impact on the project's impact scale.
	The above rating was automatically assessed using data on pageviews, watchers, and incoming links.

I am quite content with the current practice (not ruling on content per se), but have been keen to direct the community to do so. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:42, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What has directing the community to settle it accomplished? —harej (talk) (cool!) 06:09, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (West Bank) for a start. Furthermore the Macedonia naming guidelines (once I fetch the link). Hopefully one on the Golan Heights can be nutted out soon too. I don't recall where Ireland is up to either. Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:44, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This essay makes a compelling case for arbitration on content, but is wrong in saying that the arbitration system currently allows ArbCom content rulings. It is evident that there is no clear consensus on content rulings, and anecdotal evidence would suggest that most of the community is probably against it. This essay could change that by outlining a convincing argument, but any change must be coupled with some kind of referendum to allow content rulings. My view is that if you change that, you'll make a good essay better! AGK [•] 19:33, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Though Arbcom doesn't rule on content directly, it does sometimes find someone guilty of biased editing & impose sanctions. I imagine this is extremely rare, though. Peter jackson (talk) 10:29, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]