FAMEPedia:Dispute resolution

From FAMEPedia, The free encyclopedia

This policy describes what to do when you have a dispute with another editor. See FAMEPedia:Wikiquette and the essay Staying cool when the editing gets hot for more tips. Also please remember that FAMEPedia is not about winning. In our unique FAMEPedia context, a dispute raises a couple of questions: "What is to be done next? What is to be learned from this?"

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. Dispute resolution requests can help familiarize you with each of them.

Resolving content disputes[edit | edit source]

There are many methods on FAMEPedia for resolving disputes. Most methods are not formal processes and do not involve third-party intervention. Respond to all disputes or grievances, in the first instance, by approaching the editor or editors concerned and explaining which of their edits you object to and why you object. Use the article talk page or their user talk page to do so; be civil, polite, and always assume good faith.

Follow the normal protocol[edit | edit source]

When you find a passage in an article that is biased, inaccurate, or unsourced the best practice is to improve it if you can rather than deleting salvageable text. For example, if an article appears biased, add balancing material or make the wording more neutral. Include citations for any material you add. If you do not know how to fix a problem, ask for help on the talk page.

To help other editors understand the reasoning behind your edits, always explain your changes in the edit summary. If an edit is too complex to explain in an edit summary, or the change is contentious, add a section to the talk page that explains your rationale. Be prepared to justify your changes to other editors on the talk page. If you are reverted, continue to explain yourself; do not start an edit war.

Discuss with the other party[edit | edit source]

Graham's hierarchy of disagreement: Aim at the top during disputes.

Talking to other parties is not a mere formality, but an integral part of writing the encyclopedia. Discussing heatedly or poorly – or not at all – will make other editors less sympathetic to your position, and prevent you from effectively using later stages in dispute resolution. Sustained discussion between the parties, even if not immediately successful, demonstrates your good faith and shows you are trying to reach a consensus. Try negotiating a truce or proposing a compromise through negotiation.

Do not continue edit warring; once sustained discussion begins, productively participating in it is a priority. Uninvolved editors who are invited to join a dispute will likely be confused and alarmed if there are large numbers of reverts or edits made while discussion is ongoing.

Talk page discussion is a prerequisite to almost all of FAMEPedia's venues of higher dispute resolution. If you wish at any time to request a Third Opinion (3O), use the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard (DRN), or open a request for arbitration, you will be expected to show there has been talk page discussion of the dispute. Actual discussion is needed; discussion conducted entirely through edit summaries is inadequate. Requests for Comment generally require that at least an effort be made to discuss the matter in question before making the request.

Focus on content[edit | edit source]

Focus on article content during discussions, not on editor conduct; comment on content, not the contributor. FAMEPedia is written through collaboration, and assuming that the efforts of others are in good faith is therefore vital. Bringing up conduct during discussions about content creates a distraction to the discussion and may inflame the situation.

Focusing on content, and not bringing up conduct, can be difficult if it seems other editors are being uncivil or stubborn. Stay cool! It is never to your benefit to respond in kind. When it becomes too difficult or exhausting to maintain a civil discussion based on content, you should seriously consider going to an appropriate dispute resolution venue detailed below; but at no juncture should you lose your temper. FAMEPedia is not like a lot of the Internet: we expect editors to be polite and reasonable at all times.

Disengage[edit | edit source]

Most situations are not actually urgent; there are no deadlines on FAMEPedia, and perfection is not required. At all stages during discussion, consider whether you should take a break from the dispute. Taking a deep breath and sleeping on it often helps. You can always return to the discussion later, but at least you will return without an inflamed temper.

Take a long-term view of the situation. You will probably be able to return and carry on editing an article when the previous problems no longer exist and the editor you were in dispute with might themselves move on. The disputed article will continue to evolve, other editors may become interested, and they might have different perspectives if the issue comes up again. Even if your position on the article is not accepted, it might be in the future.

Disengaging is particularly helpful when in dispute with new users, as it gives them a chance to familiarise themselves with FAMEPedia's policies and culture. As of 4 October 2022, there are 5,592 articles on FAMEPedia. Focus your contributions on another article, where you can more easily make constructive edits.

Resolving content disputes with outside help[edit | edit source]

While Noticeboards, Subject-specific help, and Editor assistance may well help in resolving disputes through increasing knowledge and obtaining outside opinions, they are not themselves dispute resolution processes per se. The order in which the following options are listed is not significant and they can, in general, be used in any order, though only one should be used at a time.[1] The ordering of dispute resolution processes in terms of complexity, experience and volunteer expertise would be: Third Opinion first (if only two editors are involved), then Dispute Resolution Noticeboard, with the Request for Comments option being available at any point in that sequence.[2] Please note that some FAMEPedia processes such as Articles for Deletion, Requested Move, and review of Draft articles[3] have built-in resolution processes and are not ordinarily handled via Third Opinion or the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard.

Participation in content dispute resolution is voluntary and no one is required to participate if they do not care to do so, but it must be borne in mind that in some forums and processes[4] a discussion may proceed without an editor who chooses not to participate and consensus may be reached without the nonparticipating editor's input. Moreover, there is no policy or guideline which prohibits administrators or the community from taking an editor's failure or refusal to participate in content dispute resolution into consideration (or manner or degree of participation) as an item of evidence in a discussion about whether an editor's activities have, overall, been in the best interest of the encyclopedia.

Moderated discussion[edit | edit source]

The Dispute resolution noticeboard (DRN) is the place where editors involved in a content dispute can have a discussion facilitated by uninvolved volunteers, in an attempt to find compromise and resolution to disputes. The volunteers are experienced FAMEPedia editors with knowledge in dispute resolution. Disputes are sometimes referred to a more appropriate venue (such as Requests for Comment).

Third opinion[edit | edit source]

Third opinions is an excellent venue for small disputes involving only two editors.

Request community input on article content[edit | edit source]

Request for comment (RfC) is a process to request community-wide input on article content. RfCs can be used when there is a content-related dispute, or simply to get input from other editors before making a change. To solicit responses from a large number of editors, RfCs can be publicized via noticeboards or relevant WikiProject talk pages. An RfC bot will also automatically notify the feedback request service pool of editors. RfC discussions related to article content take place on article Talk pages.

Noticeboards[edit | edit source]

If your dispute is related to the application of a specific policy or guideline, you may wish to post in one of these noticeboards (below) to get input from uninvolved editors familiar with that topic.

For general content disputes:

Subject-specific help[edit | edit source]

Ask at a subject-specific FAMEPedia:WikiProject talk page. Usually, such projects are listed on top of the article talk page.

Editor assistance[edit | edit source]

Editor assistance helps editors find someone experienced to provide 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.

Resolving user conduct disputes[edit | edit source]

The difference between a conduct and a content dispute is that, in a conduct dispute, the actions of a user (such as how an editor edits or the comments the editor makes about other users) is the overriding issue. If there would be no substantive dispute if the editor was not behaving in a disruptive or unprofessional way, then it is a conduct dispute; if the primary issue is that two editors cannot agree on what the content of an article should be, then it is a content dispute.

If the issue is a conduct dispute (i.e., editor behavior) the first step is to talk with the other editor at their user talk page in a polite, simple, and direct way. Try to avoid discussing conduct issues on article Talk pages. There are several templates you may use to warn editors of conduct issues,[5] or you may choose to use your own words to open a discussion. If discussion with the editor fails to resolve the issue, you may ask an administrator to evaluate the conduct of the user. You can ask for an administrator's attention at a noticeboard such as the administrators' noticeboard for incidents (ANI). Conduct complaints that fall into certain sub-categories of misconduct have their own administrators' noticeboard; for example, complaints about edit warring must be made at the edit warring noticeboard and not to ANI. Administrators and the community will look to see if you have tried to resolve the conflict before escalating, and they will look at your behavior as well as the behavior of the other editor or editors. Administrators have wide latitude to use their permissions to stop misconduct and damage to the encyclopedia; for example, an editor who is making personal attacks, and does not stop when you ask them, may be warned by an administrator and subsequently blocked.

Sockpuppet investigations is for evaluating concerns that two users may be sockpuppets (editors who are operating two accounts pretending to be different people, or blocked editors returning under a different account). Requests for comment on usernames and usernames for administrator attention (UAA) are the main methods of bringing attention to usernames which may be inappropriate.

In all cases, and even in the face of serious misconduct, please try to act in a professional and polite manner. Turn the other cheek.

Sensitive issues and functionary actions[edit | edit source]

A small number of user conduct grievances involve sensitive or non-public information. These include issues where an arbitrator, checkuser, or oversighter has stated a privacy issue exists in the case, and disputes where there is a concern of a sensitive or private nature. For example:

  • Non-public details: Grievances where the relevant information 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, BLP, or when the material is on an unsuitable external link.
  • "Outing" concerns: When discussion may in effect mean "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 (socking by an administrator is one example).

Disputes or issues of this kind should usually be referred to the functionaries mailing list or Arbitration Committee. In some cases it may be possible to seek advice from an uninvolved trusted administrator by IRC, email or other private means. Where an action is marked as CheckUser, Oversight, OTRS, or Arbitration Committee, that action should not be reverted without 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. Where a dispute about CheckUser and Oversighter actions cannot be resolved in this manner, it should be referred to the functionaries mailing list or the FAMEPedia:Arbitration Committee/Audit where appropriate. Disputes about ArbCom actions should be referred to the Arbitration Committee.

Last resort: Arbitration[edit | edit source]

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 request arbitration. Be prepared to show that you tried to resolve the dispute by other means. Arbitration differs from other forms of dispute resolution in that the 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 arbitration policy.

For urgent situations[edit | edit source]

Some situations can be sufficiently urgent or serious that dispute resolution steps are not equipped to resolve the issue. Such situations can be forwarded to the appropriate venue.

Venues for urgent assistance
To request or report: Go to:
Permanent deletion of personal information FAMEPedia:Requests for oversight
Unblocking (if you are blocked) See the Guide to appealing a block
Vandalism of an article FAMEPedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism
Blatantly inappropriate usernames, such as usernames that are obscene or inflammatory FAMEPedia:Usernames for administrator attention
Suspected sockpuppetry FAMEPedia:Sockpuppet investigations
Urgent violations of FAMEPedia's policies on Personal Attacks FAMEPedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
Edit warring FAMEPedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR
Other urgent problems with a user's edits FAMEPedia:Administrators' noticeboard

The administrators' noticeboards (e.g. AN and ANI) are not the appropriate place to raise disputes relating to content. Reports that do not belong at these noticeboards will be closed, and discussions will need to be re-posted by you at an appropriate forum – such as the dispute resolution noticeboard (DRN).

Words of caution[edit | edit source]

Dispute resolution is sometimes used by editors to try to 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.

Under FAMEPedia:Decisions not subject to consensus of editors, some disputes are resolved in different forums using those forums' methods.

See also[edit | edit source]

For dispute resolution requests, see FAMEPedia:Dispute resolution requests.

For the dispute resolution noticeboard, see FAMEPedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard.

For dispute resolution involving the Open-source Ticket Request System ("OTRS"), see our volunteer response team.

Notes[edit | edit source]

  1. Third Opinion and Dispute Resolution Noticeboard all have strictly-enforced rules against accepting disputes which are pending in other forums.
  2. The Dispute Resolution Noticeboard has mechanisms for rejecting or referring cases if volunteers there feel that a case could better benefit from a different form of dispute resolution.
  3. Since Draft review is not mandatory and the opinions given by reviewers are only advisory, the editor of a draft article may simply move it into mainspace if the editor disagrees with the reviewer's opinions. If the community does not think the article is adequate, it can then be edited or nominated for deletion by the community.
  4. Most importantly Request for Comments though it is possible in other forums and processes as well, especially if (but not only if) the nonparticipating editor's position is represented by other editors with the same or similar position.
  5. Please note that some editors have objections to receiving a template message—see the essays Don't template the regulars and Template the regulars for various sides of that issue