 | This is an
essay on
WP:CONDUCT and
WP:Dispute resolution policies. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of
Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been
thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. |
 | This page in a nutshell: A disagreement about content is no excuse for bad behaviour. |
Sometimes a content dispute cannot be settled amicably because one or more of the editors involved are behaving unacceptably. Wikipedia's Content resolution processes assume or require that all editors are behaving properly. So if an editor's conduct is preventing resolution of the dispute, there is a separate conduct issue that needs to be settled as a conduct issue before the content dispute can be discussed sensibly.
An argument often made at WP:ANI goes along the lines of, "this is a content dispute, not a conduct dispute. Stop WP:GAMING the system."
What is wrong with this argument?
Behaviours such as:
- ad hominem arguments
- insults
- lying
- filibustering
- edit-warring
- sock puppetry
are all contrary to Wikipedia conduct policies. Such tactics are sometimes used in a WP:BADFAITH attempt to gain unfair advantage in a content dispute. Any sensible editor will only escalate a dispute to WP:ANI as a last resort, because they have been unable to have a reasonable discussion, and they are in need of help. The complaint should be considered on its merits.
Any form of misconduct is unacceptable, regardless of whether there is some underlying content disagreement fuelling conflict.
Policy says that all of the WP:CONTENTDISPUTE procedures are only for content. The ground-rules for those venues forbid discussion of conduct, and require editors to focus on content. In some disputes, conduct is the primary issue.
A misbehaving editor should be educated about their conduct. Presenting further evidence to them about any content disputes they may be involved in does not address this – it wastes everybody's time and allows their conduct issues to become further entrenched. It may also increase frustration and hostility between editors who have the potential to be productive members of the community.
If repeated polite attempts to engage with a disruptive editor have failed, the forum for dealing with this is
WP:ANI, you should report it there. If you include [[WP:NOTCONTENT]] in your explanation, this will help the administrators to understand what you are getting at.
What if I too have been drawn in to bad conduct by another editor's goading?
Come clean and apologise. And of course make sure you conduct yourself impeccably from now on, even under duress. You may be sanctioned for it anyway if concerns remain (see WP:NOPUNISH), but the past can not be undone. The one thing you don't want to do is to dig yourself deeper in.
What if the bad faith tactics have so muddied the waters that nobody at ANI can tell where the content issue ends and the gaming begins?
You could apply for WP:MEDIATION. While this is intended for content disputes, it will be overseen by an experienced mediator who will be able to help identify any bad faith conduct affecting the mediation discussion.
But be sure that you have exhausted all other avenues first. Mediation is the last stop before final arbitration. It can be a lengthy process and is not undertaken lightly.
| This is an
essay on
WP:CONDUCT and
WP:Dispute resolution policies. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of
Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been
thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. |
| This page in a nutshell: A disagreement about content is no excuse for bad behaviour. |
Sometimes a content dispute cannot be settled amicably because one or more of the editors involved are behaving unacceptably. Wikipedia's Content resolution processes assume or require that all editors are behaving properly. So if an editor's conduct is preventing resolution of the dispute, there is a separate conduct issue that needs to be settled as a conduct issue before the content dispute can be discussed sensibly.
An argument often made at WP:ANI goes along the lines of, "this is a content dispute, not a conduct dispute. Stop WP:GAMING the system."
What is wrong with this argument?
Behaviours such as:
- ad hominem arguments
- insults
- lying
- filibustering
- edit-warring
- sock puppetry
are all contrary to Wikipedia conduct policies. Such tactics are sometimes used in a WP:BADFAITH attempt to gain unfair advantage in a content dispute. Any sensible editor will only escalate a dispute to WP:ANI as a last resort, because they have been unable to have a reasonable discussion, and they are in need of help. The complaint should be considered on its merits.
Any form of misconduct is unacceptable, regardless of whether there is some underlying content disagreement fuelling conflict.
Policy says that all of the WP:CONTENTDISPUTE procedures are only for content. The ground-rules for those venues forbid discussion of conduct, and require editors to focus on content. In some disputes, conduct is the primary issue.
A misbehaving editor should be educated about their conduct. Presenting further evidence to them about any content disputes they may be involved in does not address this – it wastes everybody's time and allows their conduct issues to become further entrenched. It may also increase frustration and hostility between editors who have the potential to be productive members of the community.
If repeated polite attempts to engage with a disruptive editor have failed, the forum for dealing with this is
WP:ANI, you should report it there. If you include [[WP:NOTCONTENT]] in your explanation, this will help the administrators to understand what you are getting at.
What if I too have been drawn in to bad conduct by another editor's goading?
Come clean and apologise. And of course make sure you conduct yourself impeccably from now on, even under duress. You may be sanctioned for it anyway if concerns remain (see WP:NOPUNISH), but the past can not be undone. The one thing you don't want to do is to dig yourself deeper in.
What if the bad faith tactics have so muddied the waters that nobody at ANI can tell where the content issue ends and the gaming begins?
You could apply for WP:MEDIATION. While this is intended for content disputes, it will be overseen by an experienced mediator who will be able to help identify any bad faith conduct affecting the mediation discussion.
But be sure that you have exhausted all other avenues first. Mediation is the last stop before final arbitration. It can be a lengthy process and is not undertaken lightly.