Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Dealing with disputes: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Ritchie333 (talk | contribs) →Triage: Reword. If only two editors are edit-warring on Donald Trump, you wouldn't want to full protect the entire article |
Ritchie333 (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 153:
[[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|Tag team]] that is sweeping through multiple articles, pushing their particular agenda.
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.
| |||