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

Revision as of 17:09, 13 May 2009

Revision as of 07:15, 21 June 2009

Line 2:

==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 busy humandynamic endeavor, there are bound to be someoccasional disputes; hereon andWikipedia, there. Thethe vast majority of disputes on Wikipedia are minor ones, or brief ones that the participants are well able to deal with on their own.

This page is designed to address a different kind of dispute: Thethose that are long-running or widespread ones, which the participants do not appear able to resolve in a way that is satisfactory to the participants, while remaining in adherenceadhering to Wikipedia's policies.

In some of these disputes, the presence and/or intervention of an uninvolved administrator may help to de-escalate a dispute.

Line 10:

[[Image:Medic template.gif|left]]'''Administrator intervention in complex disputes is an art, not a science.''' It requires a calm demeanor in the face of bitter attacks, an excellent knowledge of the wikiprocess, a good sense of judgment, and a light touch. When at all possible, administrator intervention should be targeted towards guiding the participants towards resolving their own disputes, and not imposing the administrator's view of "what the article should be."

The ultimate goal is to produce an article whichthat is in adherencecomplies with Wikipedia's policies, and reflects positively on Wikipediathe project.

==Definition of uninvolved==

Line 174:

Some of the most difficult and contentious disputes involve [[WP:BLP|material about living persons]]. However, these are precisely the articles where administrative intervention is most important. Often, the subjects of articles can become involved in protesting material they feel is false, invasive of privacy, unfair or unbalanced. From a legal, moral, ethical and public opinion standpoint, Wikipedia has a clear mandate to be responsible, restrained and absolutely accurate in its biographical treatment of living persons. Administrators are often called upon to investigate violations of this mandate.

'''First, do no harm.''' This is the prime directive of the encyclopedia's BLP policy. If you find that an article is embroiled in a revert war over contentious material which would tend to bring a person into disrepute (for example, John Doe was arrested for soliciting a prostitute), assume that the material is false and remove it, '''unless''' there are [[WP:RS|clearly reliable sources]] provided which support the material. Do not simply assume that the source is reliable -– examine it for yourself. If there is any question in your mind about the source's credibility, remove the material.

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.