This is an essay of suggestions to editors having difficulty in disputes or asking for help therein.
When reporting a problem, discussing issues with other users, or doing anything related to any dispute, one of the most important steps to take is to be concise in your description of the issue.
Wikipedia is edited and administrated almost entirely by unpaid volunteers. Consequently, nobody has a requirement beyond personal interest to get involved in a dispute. An outsider reviewing the dispute will be turned off by a long description, and in fact sometimes a terse request will get attention faster than a comprehensive description of the problem.
Related to the last point, getting outside help early off in a dispute can make its resolution that much easier as it can mean significantly fewer discussion comments an outsider needs to read in order to participate.
Again, Wikipedia is edited and administrated almost entirely by unpaid volunteers. If your dispute is extremely convoluted or requires reading pages upon pages of discussion comments spanning weeks or months of argument in order to understand all the affairs, it's not going to attract much attention.
That is to say, choose what point you're going to argue and stick to it. Don't get distracted by other matters such as claims of inappropriate behavior, especially pertaining to unrelated disputes. Work to resolve the main problem first, then worry about other matters- you may find they lose meaning.
Even if you're absolutely sure it's applicable, it's very likely another editor will misinterpret your statement as a threat of legal action, which is specifically prohibited on Wikipedia (see WP:NLT). That isn't to say you can't pursue legal action if it becomes necessary, but in most cases on Wikipedia it isn't necessary.
But if you don't intend to make a legal threat, and just wish to draw attention to something you think is libelous, it's important to be as unambiguous as possible. If you have a problem with a biography of a living person, the best thing to do, if your removal of content is disputed, is to go to the biographies of living persons noticeboard and state why you think the content may be harmful to the subject.
If you're connected to the subject of the article- say as an employee of a company or a relative or a person- you have a conflict of interest. That doesn't mean you can't edit the article, but it does mean that your edits to that article will come under more scrutiny. This is not a bad thing; no matter your track record as a Wikipedia editor, or professional experience in journalism, law, research or any other field, a conflict of interest is still a conflict of interest, and will have an influence on your edits.
Even if you don't make such an admission, in most cases where the conflict of interest matters, it's patently obvious to the volunteers who look over the case, and concealing such a connection serves to suggest to outsiders that you intend to conceal more through your edits. On the other hand, making an admission of such a conflict goes a long way towards building up good faith in your contributions.
Finally, there have been several cases in the past where a conflicted editor's edits to their Wikipedia article have backfired, and resulted in media attention to the subject's involvement in making such edits. Be aware if your intent is to suppress a particular viewpoint or promote another, you run a real risk of unwanted media attention.
A personal bias can be considered a conflict of interest. Strictly speaking, everyone has conflicts of interest, but when those conflicts become disruptive, there is a problem. Potential sources of personal bias include:
It is important to always check your own personal biases. This is meant as an aid to the assumption of good faith; experienced editors will try to assume you have the best interests of encyclopedia building in mind, which means you are checking your own biases. As such, concealing a bias or letting it control your position or actions in a dispute will result in bad faith all around.
One excellent example worth following in my opinion, is the stance of current arbitrator Newyorkbrad, who regularly recuses himself from any arbitration proceedings having to do with the September 11 attacks.
|
Main pages: meta:Don't be a dick and Wikipedia:Please be a giant dick, so we can ban you |
The most important piece of advice in getting your point of view understood, and more importantly, accepted by other editors, is in avoiding behavior for which other editors might want to call you a dick, or other suitable term.
In this case, I specifically mean to avoid doing things in disputes that, while they might make your point clear, you wouldn't do in a polite argument. That is to say, try not just to win the argument, but also to win the respect of your opponent. Being a dick will not only cause you to lose respect, it may cause you to lose the argument if only a local consensus is necessary.