Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Dealing with disputes: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→Overview: bit more c-e ing |
Left guide (talk | contribs) m case fixes |
||
| (44 intermediate revisions by 17 users not shown) | |||
Line 1:
{{tocright}} {{shortcut|WP:ADMINGUIDE/DISPUTES|WP:ADMINGUIDE/DR}}
==Overview==
Wikipedia is a busy place with millions of articles already, and thousands of new articles being added (or attempted) every day, with a net gain of thousands of new articles each week. As in any dynamic endeavor, there are bound to be occasional disputes; on Wikipedia, the vast majority are minor or brief, and the participants are well able to deal with the issues on their own.
This page is designed to address a different kind of dispute: those that are long-running or widespread,
In some of these disputes, the presence and/or intervention of an uninvolved administrator may help to de-escalate a dispute.
Line 13:
==Definition of uninvolved==
An uninvolved administrator is one who
Exception: If there is any doubt about whether or not you are uninvolved, but for some reason you think that you, as an admin, are the best person available (perhaps if the participants have invited you to intervene), it is best to openly declare your intentions on the article talkpage, and get a formal "signoff" from the participants.
Line 21:
"''Hi, I have been invited to be an administrator to intervene in this dispute. I am willing to do this, and I will do my best to stay neutral and fair. However, I should state up front that I was involved in a dispute with one of the participants (name) over (article) at some time in the past (dates). Anyone that wishes to review that matter can check here (diffs). If all of the major participants are still willing to accept me as an intermediary here though, please indicate your acceptance below.''"
</blockquote>
Then, if the major participants agree, you can continue.
==Assess the situation==
===Triage===
Assuming that your "uninvolved" status is not in question, start with assessing the situation. These do not have to be followed in order, but they are a good place to start. Check on:
Line 37 ⟶ 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 63 ⟶ 62:
** How long have they been on Wikipedia?
** Do they work on articles in multiple subject areas, or just one?
** Where do they seem to spend the majority of their on-wiki time? You may also wish to check with [http://
** Do they have a mix of article and talkpage edits, or do they lean towards one over the other?
:: A contrib list with nothing but talkpage edits, and no article edits, ''may'' be an indication of an editor who spends all their time doing nothing but jumping from dispute to dispute
:: A talk page with ''no'' contributions (eg: replies) from the user, but lots of canned messages from bots (such as [[User:DPL bot]]) and occasional messages from other people may indicate that a user does not know about Wikipedia communication methods. Be ''very'' careful to assume good faith; even if the user has received multiple warnings for edit-warring or BLP violations
* Look at their userpage, scan through it to get a sense of their personality
** An empty or "boilerplate" userpage is sometimes an indicator of a sockpuppet or meatpuppet account, though many new and some established good-faith editors have empty userpages.
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,
==Remind them of the goals==
Sometimes when editors are in the heat of an argument, they forget what our main goal is, which is to create an encyclopedia. Battling editors will often completely lose sight of the actual article text, and go off on some tangent about each other's political leanings or education, or they'll veer off into a debate about some tangential aspect of history or geography or military command structure, or they'll complain bitterly about who said what to whom a year ago. Try to bring them back to focus on the article.
This message can be as short and sweet as, "''
Or, you may wish to post something more detailed, and tailored to the situation and participants. Example:[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rab_concentration_camp&diff=204582271&oldid=204556161]
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 98:
Before anything else is tried, it is essential that all participants who are editing the article in a controversial way, are also adequately explaining what it is that they are doing.
[[Image:Bird template.
Actual discussion at the talkpage ''may'' not always be essential. If editors are working together properly, simply making notes in edit summaries may be all that's needed. See [[WP:WIARM]]. But in the case of a "stuck" dispute, and especially in the case of edit wars, talkpage discussion is strongly recommended.
Line 106:
Most Wikipedia articles that are in a state of "healthy" editing, perhaps even a [[WP:BRD|Bold, revert, discuss]] cycle, will have editors making steadily successive "tweaks" to the article, circling in towards consensus. So if you prevent editing of the page, you may be blocking an essential part of the consensus process.
However, if editors have fallen into a rut where all they are doing is reverting each other without actually ''trying to improve'' each other's text, then page protection or editing restrictions may be in order. There is a subtle, but very important distinction. When in doubt, the best advice is, ''do not restrict''. See also: [[Wikipedia talk:Disruptive editing/Archive 4#Blocking consensus|Wikipedia talk:Disruptive editing#Blocking consensus]].
===Focus what they're talking about===
Line 133:
===Tutor them on other steps===
[[Image:Nuvola_apps_edu_miscellaneous.svg|right|150px]]
* If there's a controversial section of the article that is raising tension, suggest ''temporarily'' moving it to talk for discussion. Getting a hotly
* Has an RfC yet been filed on the article? Or even within the last 6 months? If not, encourage the participants to do so.
: If they're still resistant, lay it out for them. '''Don't''' file the RfC yourself, but you may wish to show them exact text of how to file one.
* Point out the [[WP:SEEKHELP|dispute resolution noticeboards]]. For example, if the participants are engaged in a dispute about whether or not a source is reliable, encourage them to start a thread at the [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard]].
* Ask the participants if they have requested comments from other WikiProjects or article talkpages (note this does ''not'' mean requesting comments just from users who they know will agree with them)
: Suggest some places where a public notice may be a good idea, to bring in other experienced viewpoints
* Ask the participants if they have tried mediation?
** Tutor them on what mediation is for, link them to [[WP:
** You may need to clear up common misconceptions about mediation. For example, explain to them that:
*** Mediation is not binding
*** Mediation is a strictly voluntary process
*** The mediator will not be empowered to "make a decision"
*** The only goal of mediation, will be to provide a structured environment in which the participants may be able to come up with a mutually
* Some of them may wish to go straight to [[WP:ARBCOM|arbitration]], so you may need to clear up some misconceptions there, too.
** Explain that Arbitration is for ''user conduct'' disputes, and never for making decisions on ''article content''
Line 150 ⟶ 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.
It is important to remember that most often the editors pushing these theories are ''not'' acting in bad faith. They often strongly believe that they are doing what is best for Wikipedia, and best for the world. They may feel that they have a duty to "[[Wikipedia:The Truth|the Truth]]". Or, they may be deeply embarrassed by some perceived blot in their country's past, and their unconscious reaction is to want to remove or diminish mention of it from the encyclopedia. Again, they may not be acting in bad faith, they may just have a natural, perhaps unconscious bias towards removing negative information about something that they feel strongly about.
Line 160 ⟶ 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.
==How to intervene in content disputes==
Line 167 ⟶ 171:
===Obvious POV-pushing===
[[Image:Biohazard template.
Removing such editors will de-escalate the dispute, avoid revert wars, and probably decrease incivility as well. However, it must be done with care, because it does involve the administrator making an overt content judgment, so should only be done in obvious cases.
Line 178 ⟶ 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 187 ⟶ 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
====Option: Restrict certain editors from participating====
Line 224 ⟶ 228:
In other cases, where sources use both methods, the general advice on these kinds of "either/or" decisions to keep the peace, is to say "Neither". If there's a massive dispute about an infobox, just don't include an infobox on that article. If a category is controversial, leave it off.
Certain place name disputes have found creative solutions in the past. The most often-cited success story is that of Gdansk/Danzig, where an elaborate system was devised to determine which name to use in a given article, and a template placed on the talkpage to remind editors of what was decided: [[Template:Gdansk-Vote-Notice]]. Encourage disputants to come up with a similarly
Another solution with binary disputes is dealt with via [[WP:FOOTNOTES|footnotes]], to indicate that there are multiple ways of naming or describing something.
Line 232 ⟶ 236:
* '''Don't lose your cool.''' If you attempt to resolve thorny disputes, you ''will'' be the target of baiting, incivility, and potentially personal attacks. Some editors are understandably angry at "being told what to do"; others may believe that if they draw you into a personal argument you will be "involved" and unable to neutrally intervene. [[WP:BAIT|Don't take the bait]]. Responding in kind is never helpful, and one of your roles is to model appropriate behavior. You are never compelled to respond to insults or incivility. If you find yourself getting angry, go work on [[Wikipedia:Administrative backlog|something else]] for awhile.
* '''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]].
* '''Don't encourage admin-dependency'''. Do not foster any sense that administrator intervention is "needed" in disputes. Where at all possible, editors are supposed to deal with their own disagreements. As of
==Tips==
Line 242 ⟶ 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.
* Be even-handed about issuing warnings. If you warn one editor, but not others who have been equally as disruptive, this can exacerbate problems. {{pb}} However, you don't need to use the same wording with all editors. With two editors in a dispute, one that has a history of disputes might warrant a strong warning such as, "You've been warned about this before, please cease this or you could be looking at another block," while the other editor might warrant, "This isn't like you at all. Please review [[WP:CIVIL]], and try to scale things back a notch?"
* Look for places where the whole framing of the issue is polarizing the dispute. Some issues can be rectified simply by a minor change to a title or section structure
* If the participants attack you, don't take it personally. There are complex psychological factors at play in a dispute, especially towards a mediator or perceived authority figure. Anger from the participants may have nothing to do with anything that you actually did, so don't react defensively, just take it in stride, and keep your eye on the goal: High quality articles. {{pb}} If you feel yourself getting angry, let the article sit for awhile, and go work on [[:Category:Administrative backlog|something else]].
* Disputes generally don't need hour-by-hour guidance -- checking in every day or two may be all that's needed.
* Sometimes it is helpful to ask one side to describe what they think are the best or most reasonable points by the other side.
Line 256 ⟶ 258:
==Practice==
If you'd like to get your feet wet on a POV dispute, where things may have died down a bit, check [[:Category:NPOV disputes]].
Other good places to find disputes are at [[WP:RFC|Requests for comment]], [[WP:ANI]], [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Admin enforcement requested]], or one of the [[WP:DR|Dispute resolution noticeboards]]
==See also==
Line 266 ⟶ 268:
* [[:Category:NPOV disputes]]
* [[WP:DE#Dealing with disruptive editors]]
{{New admin school}}▼
[[Category:Wikipedia dispute resolution]]▼
▲[[Category:Wikipedia dispute resolution]]
| |||