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

Revision as of 21:01, 8 August 2010

Revision as of 21:05, 8 August 2010

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- disputed section of text off the "live" page can reduce tension.

* 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.

Line 144:

*** 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- agreeable compromise. The ''participants'', all of them, will still be the ones with the power.

* 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 180:

Instruct involved editors to discuss the contentious material on the article's Talk page. Request outside opinions through the [[WP:BLPN|biographies of living persons noticeboard]], which is monitored by many editors and admins who are familiar with BLP issues.

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 Web site. Exercise patience and restraint with them, and do not block them for minor violations (such as threatening a libel lawsuit over potentially- defamatory material.) Instead, refer them to the [[m:OTRS|OTRS system]] by giving them this e-mail address: '''{{NoSpamEmail|info-en-q|wikimedia.org}}'''.

===Other kinds of content disputes===

Line 224:

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- creative solution. In most cases (such as a dispute about listing a birthplace), the consensus has been to list the name of the ___location as it was at the time that the individual was born, and then include a parenthetical next to it to indicate the area's current name, i.e., "Vladislav was born in what was then known as Leningrad (today called St. Petersburg)."

Another solution with binary disputes is dealt with via [[WP:FOOTNOTES|footnotes]], to indicate that there are multiple ways of naming or describing something.