Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Dealing with disputes: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→Tutor them on other steps: - mention the dispute resolution noticeboards |
→Dealing with entrenched views: - adding suggestion on how to proceed |
||
Line 162:
* Seemingly unprovoked incivility and personal attacks at those with opposing views, often with labels attached: "Of course you think differently, you're an atheist/Communist/Christian/etc."
* 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.''
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==
| |||