Difference between revisions of "P2P Foundation:Dispute Resolution"

From P2P Foundation
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Created page with 'Editor note: This is an important and large page and it was mostly borrowed from Wikipedia. This page is currently under heavy examination. If you hop in and simply delete red...')
 
 
(2 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
Editor note:  This is an important and large page and it was mostly borrowed from Wikipedia.  This page is currently under heavy examination.  If you hop in and simply delete red links your work will be reverted.
+
=More Information=
  
 
+
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MeatBall:ConflictResolution ConflictResolution]
{{selfref|[[WP:DR]] redirects here. You may also be looking for [[P2P Foundation:Deletion review]], [[P2P Foundation:Deny recognition]], [[P2P Foundation:Double redirects]] or [[P2P Foundation:Database reports]].}}
 
:''For the WikiProject on dispute resolution, see [[P2P Foundation:WikiProject Dispute Resolution]]. For easy access to filing dispute resolution requests, see [[P2P Foundation:Dispute resolution requests]]''
 
{{procedural policy|WP:DR|WP:DISPUTE}}
 
{{nutshell|Resolve disputes calmly, through civil discussion and [[P2P Foundation:Consensus|consensus]]-building on relevant discussion pages. There are several available options to request opinions from editors outside the dispute. Other dispute resolution mechanisms include [[P2P Foundation:Mediation|mediation]] or, after all other methods have been tried, [[P2P Foundation:Arbitration Committee|arbitration]].}}
 
{{dispute-resolution}}
 
 
 
This policy describes what to do when you have a dispute with another editor. See [[P2P Foundation:Wikiquette]] and the essay [[P2P Foundation:Staying cool when the editing gets hot|Staying cool when the editing gets hot]] for more tips. Also please remember that [[WP:PRIDE|P2P Foundation is not about winning]].
 
 
 
For easy and direct access to dispute resolution requests, along with concise and accurate summaries of their respective guidelines, use '''[[P2P Foundation:Dispute resolution requests]]''' ('''[[WP:DRR]]'''). Note also that the "dispute resolution" sidebar (right) has direct links to filing requests for many of the dispute resolution levels, but requesting dispute resolution involves different guidelines and application processes for each level, and [[WP:DRR]] can familiarize you with each of them.
 
 
 
For dispute resolution involving edits by an [[WP:OTRS|Open-source Ticket Request System]] ("OTRS") volunteer, see our policy page on the [[WP:VRT|volunteer response team]].
 
 
 
==Avoiding disputes==
 
{{shortcut|WP:Discussion}}
 
A variety of positive methods exist for helping to positively resolve disputes, before using formal processes or third-party intervention.
 
 
 
=== Focus on content ===
 
{{shortcut|WP:FOC}}
 
{{see|P2P Foundation:Editing policy}}
 
The most important first step is to focus on content, and not on editors. P2P Foundation is built upon the principle of collaboration and assuming that the efforts of others are in good faith is important to any community.
 
 
 
When you find a passage in an article that you find is biased or inaccurate, improve it if you can. If that is not easily possible, and you disagree with a point of view expressed in an article, don't just delete it. Rather, balance it with what you think is neutral. Note that unreferenced text may be tagged or removed because of our policy on [[WP:Verifiability|Verifiability]].
 
 
 
Always explain your changes in the edit summary to help other editors understand the reasoning behind them. If an edit is potentially contentious, explain why you made the change and how it improves the article. If your reasoning is complex, add a section to the [[WP:TALK|talk page]] of the article to explain it and refer to that section in the edit summary. If your edit gets reverted, you can discuss the reversion with other editors on the talk page.
 
 
 
In summary: Don't take others' actions personally. Explain to them what you're doing, and always be prepared to change your mind.
 
 
 
=== Stay cool ===
 
{{Policy shortcut|WP:DISENGAGE}}
 
Most situations are not urgent. Please give both yourself and the other party some time. Often it helps to just take a deep breath and sleep on it. Don't worry! You can always fix the problem later. (You can go back to the [[Help:Page history|page history]] of an article ''at any time'', to find the version of the article that you last worked on, and compare that to the current version to see whether there are still things that you'd like put in or taken out.) 
 
 
 
Take a long term view. In due course you will probably be able to return and carry on editing it, when the previous problems no longer exist and the editor you were in dispute with might themselves move on. In the meantime the disputed article will evolve, other editors may become interested and they will have different perspectives if the issue comes up again.
 
 
 
This is particularly helpful when disputing with [[P2P Foundation:Please do not bite the newcomers|new users]] as it gives them a chance to familiarize themselves with P2P Foundation's policy and culture. Focus your contributions on another article where you can make constructive progress.
 
 
 
=== <span id="discuss"/><span id="Discuss"/>Discuss with the other party ===
 
[[Image:Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement.svg|thumb|right|150px|Stay in the top three sections of this pyramid.]]
 
{{see|P2P Foundation:Negotiation}}
 
When discussing an issue, remember to [[WP:COOL|stay cool]]. If you encounter rude or inappropriate behavior, don't respond likewise. Take the other editor's perspective into account. [[P2P Foundation:Assume good faith|Assume that an editor is acting in good faith]] until it's absolutely clear that they're not. It's at that point where you should consider dispute resolution processes that involve third parties.
 
 
 
Talking to other parties is not a formality; it's an imperative to the smooth running of any community. Not discussing will make people less sympathetic to your position and may prevent you from effectively using later stages in dispute resolution. In contrast, sustained discussion and serious [[negotiation]] between the parties, even if not immediately (or even remotely) successful, shows that you are trying to find a solution.
 
 
 
Also consider negotiating a [[WP:TRUCE|truce]] or [[WP:Compromise|compromise]]. This is also important if you intend to solicit outside opinions because it allows others to consider the issue fairly without the confusion of constant ongoing edits.
 
 
 
==Resolving disputes ==
 
{{see|P2P Foundation:Requesting dispute resolution}}
 
If the previous steps fail to resolve the dispute, try one of the following methods. Which ones you choose and in what order depends on the nature of the dispute and the preferences of people involved.
 
 
 
===Sensitive and privacy-related issues===
 
{{see also|P2P Foundation:Arbitration Committee|P2P Foundation:CheckUser|P2P Foundation:Oversight|P2P Foundation:Harassment|P2P Foundation:Volunteer response team}}
 
 
 
A small number of disputes involve sensitive or non-public information. These include issues where an [[WP:AC|Arbitrator]], [[WP:CHECK|Checkuser]] or [[WP:SIGHT|Oversighter]] has stated a privacy issue exists in the case, and disputes where there is a concern of a sensitive or private nature. Examples:
 
 
 
:* '''Non-public details''' - Issues where details and evidence are not accessible to all participants or to the community as a whole. This can also happen due to copyright or privacy reasons, [[WP:BLP|BLP]], or when the material is on an unsuitable [[WP:EL|external link]];
 
:* '''"Outing" concerns''' - When discussion may in effect mean "[[WP:OUTING|outing]]", for example if there is a concern that a user is editing with a secret conflict of interest and the evidence would tend to identify them;
 
:* '''Serious matters''' - The issue involves legal concerns, harassment, or allegations that are very serious or perhaps defamatory;
 
:* '''Advice on divisive and sensitive issues''' - The issue may potentially be very divisive and advice is needed on how best to handle it. ([[WP:ADMINSOCK|sock-puppetry by an administrator]] is one example)
 
 
 
Disputes or issues of this kind should usually be referred to the [[WP:FUNC|functionaries mailing list]] or [[WP:ARBCOM|Arbitration Committee]]. In some cases it may be possible to seek advice from an uninvolved trusted administrator by IRC, email or other private means.
 
 
 
==== Actions tagged as CheckUser, Oversight, or OTRS ====
 
 
 
''These should <u>not</u> be reverted without careful checking beforehand''. The presumption is that they have a good reason, and those aware of the reason may need time to recheck, consult, and respond. Sometimes the relevant talk page or other wiki pages will have more details and these are always a good first place to check. Such actions, if disputed, should initially be raised (by email if necessary) with the agent or functionary concerned.  If they cannot be resolved in this manner, then after a reasonable time they may need to be referred for review to [[WP:AC|Arbcom]] or the [[WP:FUNC|functionaries mailing list]] (for CheckUser and Oversighter).
 
 
 
Ultimately, all English P2P Foundation-based actions are open to the scrutiny of the Arbitration Committee, as the final stage of dispute resolution on the English P2P Foundation, and as the body ultimately responsible for non-public information and privacy related issues on the wiki.
 
 
 
===Editor assistance===
 
[[P2P Foundation:Editor assistance|Editor assistance]] helps editors find someone experienced to provide you one-on-one advice and feedback. While not a required part of dispute resolution, it is designed to help you understand how to clearly and civilly express your views and work toward consensus. You may request an assistant's help at any time, whether you're involved in dispute resolution or not. Assistants can also help you find the best way to resolve your dispute or issue.
 
 
 
===Ask for a third opinion===
 
If you need neutral outside opinions in a dispute involving '''only two''' editors, turn to [[P2P Foundation:Third opinion]].
 
 
 
===Ask about the subject===
 
Ask at a subject-specific [[P2P Foundation:WikiProject]] talk page. Usually, such projects are listed on top of the article talk page.
 
 
 
===Ask about a policy===
 
Ask at a [[P2P Foundation:Policies and guidelines|policy talk page]] relevant to the issue.
 
 
 
===Ask for help at a relevant noticeboard===
 
{{Policy shortcut|WP:SEEKHELP}}
 
If your dispute is related to one of the following topics, you may wish to post about it in one of these locations, to get the opinions of other editors familiar with similar disputes:
 
* [[WP:BLPN|Biographies of Living Persons noticeboard]] – to raise alerts about problems with a living person's biography
 
* [[WP:COIN|Conflict of Interest noticeboard]] – to raise alerts about possible COI
 
* [[P2P Foundation:Content noticeboard|Content noticeboard]] – for other content issues that do not fit in the above or are of more general nature.
 
* [[WP:ELN|External links noticeboard]] – for questions about [[WP:EL|external links]] that are ''not'' being used to verify article content.
 
* [[P2P Foundation:Ethnic and cultural conflicts noticeboard|Ethnic and cultural conflicts noticeboard]] – for issues related to national, religious, ethnic, or other cultural conflicts
 
* [[WP:FICT/N|Fiction noticeboard]] – for issues related to topics about works of fiction
 
* [[WP:FTN|Fringe theories noticeboard]] – to report theories that may be being given [[WP:UNDUE|undue weight]]
 
* [[P2P Foundation:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard|Neutrality noticeboard]] – for issues about whether an article is meeting [[WP:NPOV]] and [[WP:UNDUE]].
 
* [[WP:NORN|No Original Research noticeboard]] – to ask about material that might be [[WP:NOR|original research]]  or [[WP:SYN|original synthesis]].
 
* [[WP:RSN|Reliable Sources noticeboard]] – for discussion of whether or not a source is reliable
 
* [[WP:SPI|Sockpuppet investigations]] – to ask for help in tracking down [[WP:SOCK|sockpuppets]]
 
 
 
===For incivility===
 
Turn to [[P2P Foundation:Wikiquette alerts]] for problems with [[WP:CIVIL|uncivil]] editors. First, however, consider [[WP:Ignore personal attacks|ignoring it]] &ndash; you can often get much more accomplished by rising above uncivil comments, and staying focussed on the task at hand.
 
 
 
===Request a comment===
 
Turn to [[P2P Foundation:Requests for comment]], the main avenue for disputes about user conduct. While Request for Comment can be used for disputes about user conduct, you can also request comments on articles, templates, categories, policies and guidelines. Requests for Comment about user conduct require that at least two users have tried but failed to resolve the problem by contacting the user on the user's Talk page.
 
 
 
===Informal mediation===
 
If things are getting a bit tricky, it might be useful to ask some cool heads to look in and help out. Sometimes editors who provide third opinions or respond to requests for comments may be willing to help mediate a dispute, if it is requested. The [[P2P Foundation:Mediation Cabal|Mediation Cabal]] also assists in settling disputes without turning to formal mediation, and is a good place to learn dispute resolution techniques.
 
 
 
===Formal mediation===
 
[[P2P Foundation:Requests for mediation|Request formal mediation]] of the dispute from the [[P2P Foundation:Mediation Committee|Mediation Committee]]. [[P2P Foundation:Mediation|Mediation]] is a voluntary process in which a neutral person works with the parties to a dispute. The mediator helps guide the parties into reaching an agreement that can be acceptable to everyone. When requesting formal mediation, be prepared to show that you tried to resolve the dispute using the steps listed above, and that all parties to the dispute are in agreement to mediate. Mediation cannot take place if all parties are not willing to take part. Mediation is only for disputes about Article Content, not for complaints about user conduct.
 
 
 
===Conduct a survey===
 
If consensus is difficult to gauge from discussion alone, consider conducting a survey of opinion to clarify the issues in the discussion. Note that a survey cannot ''generate'' consensus, but is helpful for understanding it.  Similarly, if you believe that users are ignoring a consensus, a survey cannot force those users to accept your proposed consensus – although a survey ''might'' assist users in understanding the balance of opinions and reasons for those opinions on a given dispute, it can also easily degenerate into an argument over whether a particular survey is fairly constructed or representative.  See [[P2P Foundation:Polling is not a substitute for discussion]] for reasons why discussion is necessary and superior to voting.
 
 
 
==If the situation is urgent==
 
 
 
*To report '''urgent''' violations of P2P Foundation's policies on [[WP:NPA|Personal Attacks]], please raise them at [[P2P Foundation:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents]].
 
* To report improper '''usernames''', see [[P2P Foundation:Usernames for administrator attention|usernames for administrator attention]].
 
* To report '''edit warring''', see the [[P2P Foundation:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR|administrators' 3RR noticeboard]].
 
* To request permanent '''[[P2P Foundation:oversight|deletion]] of personal information''', see [[P2P Foundation:Requests for oversight|requests for oversight]].
 
* To report suspected '''sockpuppetry''', see [[P2P Foundation:Sockpuppet investigations|sockpuppet investigations]].
 
* If you are '''blocked''' and wish to request to be unblocked, please place the code: <tt>'''<nowiki>{{unblock|</nowiki>''' your reason for unblock'''<nowiki> }}</nowiki>'''</tt> – on your talk page. You may also contact the blocking admin via email (navigate to their userpage or user talk page and click "E-mail this user").
 
 
 
If a user's conduct needs other urgent attention from an administrator, report it to [[WP:AN|the Administrators' Noticeboard]]. The Administrators' Noticeboard is '''not''' the place to raise disputes over content, or reports of abusive behaviour. [[WP:ADMIN|Administrators]] are not referees, and have limited authority to deal with abusive editors.
 
 
 
== Last resort: Arbitration==
 
{{see|P2P Foundation:Arbitration Committee|P2P Foundation:Arbitration policy|P2P Foundation:Requests for arbitration}}
 
{{See also|P2P Foundation:Arbitration guide}}
 
If you have taken all other reasonable steps to resolve the dispute, ''and the dispute is not over the content of an article'', you can [[P2P Foundation:Requests for arbitration|request Arbitration]]. Be prepared to show that you tried to resolve the dispute by other means. [[Arbitration]] differs from Mediation in that the [[P2P Foundation:Arbitration Committee|Arbitration Committee]] will consider the case and issue a decision, instead of merely assisting the parties in reaching an agreement. If the issue is decided by Arbitration, you will be expected to abide by the result. If the case involves serious user misconduct, Arbitration may result in a number of serious consequences up to totally banning someone from editing, as laid out in the [[P2P Foundation:Arbitration policy|Arbitration policy]]. Note that [[Arbitration]] is normally for disputes about user conduct, while [[Mediation]] is normally for disputes about article content.
 
 
 
== Words of caution ==
 
 
 
Dispute resolution is sometimes used by editors to try to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Gaming the system|game the system]. This generally backfires badly. Remember that dispute resolution mechanisms are ultimately there to enable editors to collaboratively write an encyclopedia – not to win personal or political battles.
 
 
 
==See also ==
 
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Accuracy dispute]
 
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Candor]
 
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Disruptive editing]
 
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Don't be a fanatic]
 
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Edit war]
 
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Etiquette]
 
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mea culpa]
 
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Situations and handling]
 
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No angry mastodons]
 
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOV dispute]
 
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Precedents]
 
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiWar]
 
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MeatBall:ConflictResolution]
 
 
 
 
 
[[Category:P2P Foundation dispute resolution| ]]
 
[[Category:P2P Foundation procedural policy]]
 
 
 
Passed with ? supporting, ?? August 2010.
 
 
 
<ref>Some of the text below was derived from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution under CCBYSA3.0</ref>
 
 
 
[[Category:P2P Foundation Operations]]
 
[[Category:P2P Foundation Policy]]
 
[[Category:P2P Foundation dispute resolution| ]]
 
[[Category:P2P Foundation procedural policy]]
 

Latest revision as of 04:39, 16 November 2011

More Information