Chapter 14. Disputes, Blocks, and Bans

Table of Contents

1. Content Disputes and Edit Wars
1.1. Coming to Consensus
1.2. Resolving a Dispute: Discussion
1.3. More Steps for Resolving a Content Dispute
1.4. Ineffective Solutions
1.5. Causes of Content Disputes
1.6. Case Study: Gdańsk
2. Resolving Disputes Between Editors
2.1. Dispute Resolution Processes
2.2. The Nature of Formal Evidence
2.3. Arbitration Committee
3. Blocks and Bans
3.1. Short Blocks
3.2. Longer Blocks
3.3. Bans
4. Summary
5. Conclusion to Part III

No account of Wikipedia would be complete without discussing conflicts and how they are resolved. That Wikipedia works, considering its open-door policy for editors, is not a minor miracle. Wikipedia has to cope with pettiness and strange behavior, as well as predictable amounts of editing by people with agendas and those bored children whose immediate reaction to a freely editable encyclopedia is to scribble on it. Because of Wikipedia's success in compiling a large, free, open encyclopedia, some might be surprised that the site also experiences various kinds of serious internal strife. Disputes on Wikipedia cannot be wished away ("Can't we all just get along?"). Allowing anyone to edit just about anything has a price.

This chapter will discuss onsite disputes and the procedures for their resolution. Disputes vary from teacup tempests about minor points of formatting or nomenclature to deep-rooted issues about the coverage of controversial current affairs. Without reasonably effective mechanisms for dispute resolution, the Wikipedia model of open editing could never have come as far as it has.

Reading through a realistic description of dispute resolution on Wikipedia is probably somewhat forbidding. Most readers will understandably think that they don't intend to become involved in conflict and acrimony, and this is a good goal to have. If you go far enough into the editing process, however, some disagreements are almost inevitable. Fortunately, Wikipedia has ways to resolve disputes.