Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Dealing with disputes: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Ritchie333 (talk | contribs) |
Left guide (talk | contribs) m case fixes |
||
| (9 intermediate revisions by 5 users not shown) | |||
Line 36:
: If not, immediately advise them that if they make a controversial edit, that they must ''also'' be able to explain themselves on the article talkpage (or elsewhere). If they don't, warn and block. (note: If an article is ''not'' in dispute, detailed discussion may not be required. But if there are edit wars and angst, explanation and/or discussion should be required in addition to edits.) See more on this at [[#Get them talking]], below.
* '''E'''dit-warring? Is there an active revert war going on?
:If so, administrator action may be required. If a minority of active editors are edit-warring, consider a time-limited [[WP:PBLOCK|partial block]] on the article, that allows an appeal on the talk page. If most editors are engaged in the edit war, it may be necessary to [[WP:PROTECT|protect]] the page for a time to bring in some breathing room. If the revert war involves [[WP:BLP|material about living persons]], protect the page on a version without the material in dispute.
'''Caution''': If another administrator or mediator<!-- what's a good way to tell if a mediator is involved? --> is already engaged with the particular dispute, be careful about proceeding with any radical actions unless you discuss things with them first. If you do take emergency action (such as page protection) during their absence, be sure to keep them apprised of what you've done, and be prepared to reverse yourself immediately once they return, so as not to undermine them.
Line 81:
===Be wary of snap judgments===
Keep in mind that the editors who may ''look'' the most disruptive, may not actually be the problem. In some complex disputes, a normally good editor may have been goaded into a state of incoherence by a wikistalker, or by harassment from a [[Wikipedia:Tag team|
==Remind them of the goals==
Line 92:
Ultimately, try to remind everyone that the goal is not to promote the interests of a group or a religion or a nation, but to ''have a positive effect on Wikipedia'', and create an article that is in adherence with Wikipedia policies.
==Be a
Often the best way that an administrator can intervene, is by educating the participants about how Wikipedia dispute resolution processes work. Yes, we have a page at [[WP:DR]], but often these systems are daunting for editors that haven't tried them before. So an admin may wish to "walk the participants through" things that they can try.
Line 151:
==Dealing with entrenched views==
[[Image:Esel auf Santorin.jpg|right|thumb|Some editors may have stubbornly held views]]Sometimes no matter how much advice you give, how much you persuade or cajole or threaten, some editors are just going to be entrenched in their positions. They may still be civil, they may review sources in good faith, they may be established editors with thousands of good contributions to their name, but on some certain topic, they may just be completely inflexible, to the point where they are actively blocking consensus, and/or causing additions to articles that are a violation of Wikipedia's policies on [[WP:NPOV|neutrality]]. This problem might be from one editor on an article, or multiple editors, or there may be an off-wiki [[Wikipedia:Tag team|
These situations are often noticed in topics of nationalism or religious belief, though can be found in other areas such as those of pseudoscience, supernatural phenomena, or anywhere that works of popular fiction may have imposed a false idea of reality onto some field. Internal disputes, such as areas of the [[WP:MOS|manual of style]] or [[WP:INFOBOX|infoboxes]] can also see editors with entrenched views.
Line 161:
* Rejection as "unreliable" of any source which does not agree with their world view. Or, rejection as "minority/fringe theory" or "trivia"
* Inability to propose compromises
* Seemingly unprovoked incivility and personal attacks at those with opposing views, often with labels attached: "Of course you think differently, you're an atheist/
* Misinterpretation or mining of sources. The biased editor can look straight at a history book that says, "1,000 were killed" and interpret it as anything from "There were some minor skirmishes" to "There was rampant genocide by the corrupt regime", ''and still feel in all good faith that they are reporting things neutrally.''
* Using pejorative terms for common Wikipedia features eg: "MOS wonkery", "idiotboxes"
One way to deal with the problem of entrenched views, is to ask all editors in a dispute to suggest at least one compromise that is ''different'' from their current position. If they are able to do so, it may help break the logjam and get discussion moving again. However, if an editor appears completely incapable of suggesting any kind of reasonable compromise, then this may be clear evidence of blocking the consensus process. So it may be time for you, as an administrator, to take action. Warn the editor first, but then if they still won't budge, you can remove them from the discussion (such as by a temporary talkpage [[WP:ABAN|ban]]) so that the other editors who ''are'' capable of compromise, can move forward to try and craft a consensus solution.
Line 181 ⟶ 182:
If it becomes necessary to [[WP:PROTECT|protect]] the page in question in order to stop an edit war over living persons issues, '''always''' protect the page on a version '''without''' the contentious material. This is not a final judgment on the material; rather, it is a temporary measure to prevent potentially harmful edits from remaining publicly visible while their suitability is determined.
Instruct involved editors to discuss the contentious material on the article's
It is important to remember that article subjects who are aggrieved by potential BLP violations on their biographies are generally not experienced Wikipedia editors, and they may be unfamiliar with our general conduct policies. They are often extremely angry at the fact that material they believe to be defamatory or privacy-invading is posted on the world's 10th-most-popular
===Other kinds of content disputes===
Line 190 ⟶ 191:
Beyond that, what works for one administrator and their personality style, may not work for another. The following are suggestions only:
====Option: Refer them to
In many cases, the best route in complex content disputes, is to just refer the editors to some other stage of [[WP:DR|
====Option: Restrict certain editors from participating====
Line 236 ⟶ 237:
* '''Don't issue blocks without warning.''' It is extremely rare that a problem is so urgent, that a user needs to be blocked without "a warning shot across the bow." Most people, if they know a block is imminent, ''will'' voluntarily moderate their own behavior. And even if an editor is doing things in a rapid-fire manner, such as changing templates or moving articles, a quick talkpage message, "Hey, hold up!" may be just as effective as a block, as it will post the "new message" banner to the editor. Never use blocks as punishment, use them as a last resort. The best way to offer a warning is to politely explain the problematic behavior, to clearly state what may happen if they do not change, and further, for you to explain how they can contribute better if they do change their behavior. See [[WP:BLOCK#Education and warnings]]. Where possible, try to end on a positive note.
* '''Don't issue blocks unevenly.''' If two people have been yelling at each other and you only block one, the other one should probably at least get a warning at their talkpage. On the other hand, don't feel compelled to block multiple editors when only one is acting problematically; treating [[apples and oranges]] identically is uneven as well.
* '''Don't lose your neutrality.''' Do everything possible to avoid any perception that you are agreeing with one side or the other. Because as soon as you do, the other side may stop listening to you. Don't give up ''their'' perception of ''your''
* '''Avoid issuing opinions on content''', except in blatant cases. Stick to the user conduct. As soon as you become involved in the content wars, you become more of a participant. If you ''do'' feel it necessary to issue an opinion on content, keep it very very well-grounded in policy and consensus. Link policies, give diffs to proof of consensus. Portray yourself as a judge of existing consensus, not as someone who is enforcing your own opinion over everyone else's.
* '''Don't pounce on new editors'''. Be careful about censuring a new editor who wanders into the dispute unaware. Even if an article is under strict ArbCom restrictions, always give the new editor the benefit of the doubt. Follow [[WP:BITE]], explain things first, and [[WP:AGF]].
Line 245 ⟶ 246:
* When wading into a dispute, stay excruciatingly civil. Many in the dispute will be looking to you as an authority figure, so it is essential that you set an excellent example of behavior.
* In general, never issue a block unless you have first tried warnings at both the infringing editor's user talkpage, as well as the ___location of where the attacks are taking place.
* When issuing a warning to the
* Try to avoid using the word "you" in your posts. Referring to everything in the third person can help reduce tension. Referring to everything in the first person plural ("we"), can reduce tension even more, if you're careful not to presume too much.
* Most disputes cannot be adequately resolved until the editors are civil to one another, so that's a good place to start. However, be aware that just because someone is uncivil, does not mean they are wrong about the article. There may be a gang or [[Wikipedia:Tag team|tag team]] situation.
| |||