Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Dealing with disputes: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 16:50, 13 November 2011

Revision as of 16:56, 13 November 2011

Line 238:

* '''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 early 20082011, there are over 23 million articles on Wikipedia, with several thousand new ones being added every week. But there are only about 1,500[[WP:LA|750 active administrators]], most of whom are busy with other things than complex dispute resolution. So choose your battles wisely.

==Tips==