Wikinews:Dispute resolution

This is an official policy on English Wikinews. It has wide acceptance and is considered a standard for all users to follow. Changes to this page must reflect consensus. If in doubt, discuss first on the talk page.

Shortcut: WN:DISPUTE

Policies and Guidelines

Neutral point of view Content guide Style guide

Administrators Arbitration

For Wikipedians

Accreditation Archive conventions Avoid weasel words Blocking Bots CheckUsers Cite sources Conflict of interest Copyright Dispute resolution Deletion Speedy deletion Don't disrupt Wikinews to illustrate a point Fair use Global permissions Image use Naming conventions Newsworthiness Oversight Original reporting Permission expiry Page protection Reviewing Three reverts Username

Etiquette

Wikinews is a community, which means that we have to work together. Articles often have more than one user working on them, and sometimes users will disagree about how the article should be written. Always try to maintain good etiquette in discussions with other authors.

If you have a disagreement over an article, try to reach a truce and stop editing until you can resolve the issue. Please do not engage in edit wars with other users; this is not a helpful way of resolving disputes and does nothing to improve Wikinews. Instead, follow the process outlined here to resolve disagreements and prevent them from turning into serious disputes.

Note: These steps are designed for resolving disagreements between two or more parties. Vandalism and flagrant violations of Wikinews policies and behavior guidelines by repeat offenders may be handled using expedited procedures, potentially resulting in the offender being banned from Wikinews. In most situations, however, alleged misconduct by an individual user should be handled using the principles outlined here.

Step one: Avoidance

The best way to resolve a dispute is to avoid it in the first place.

Be respectful to others and their points of view. Following the NPOV policy will help you write "defensively", such that few will object.

When someone makes an edit you consider biased or inaccurate, improve the edit, rather than reverting it. Provide a good edit summary when making significant changes that other users might object to. If you encounter rude or inappropriate behavior, resist the temptation to respond in kind.

Step two: The talk page

The first resort in resolving almost any conflict is to discuss the issue on a talk page. Either contact the other party on that user's talk page, or use the talk page associated with the article in question. Never carry on a dispute on the article page itself. When discussing an issue, stay cool and don't mount personal attacks. Take the other person's perspective into account and try to reach a compromise. Assume that the other person is acting in good faith unless you have clear evidence to the contrary.

Both at this stage and throughout the dispute resolution process, talking to other parties is not simply a formality to be satisfied before moving on to the next forum. Failure to pursue discussion in good faith shows that you are trying to escalate the dispute instead of resolving it. This 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 successful, shows that you are interested in finding a solution that fits within Wikinews policies.

Step three: Ask the community for help

If things seem to be getting unwieldy, either party may include a template on their userpage to ask the community for some assistance. Often times, the input of third parties can greatly reduce the bitter quips and accusations that slip out when trying to resolve an issue yourself. The community is often times willing to see both sides and can help you and your fellow Wikinewsie find some common ground. It's still experimental, but give it a try.

Step four: A nice cup of tea and a sit down

Disputes can get heated, and it is natural to get angry, and perhaps imagine the other party as malicious, or devious, or just plain arrogant. At this point, it's time to have a nice cup of tea and a sit down. Think of something 100% nice to say about the person. It's amazing how it can help you see the bigger picture.

Step five: Bring it here

If you feel that the dispute is getting out of hand and you have tried step one and two, then list it below so that other users can comment on the dispute. Wikinews works by building consensus. To develop a consensus on a disputed topic, you may need to expose the issue to a larger audience. Any user may comment on the dispute, however flames and personal attacks are not acceptable. The users directly involved in the dispute may request one or more other users to act as mediators in the dispute. Once a resolution has been reached the discussion will be archived.

Step six: Arbitration

If all else fails you can request your case be heard by the Wikinews:Arbitration Committee. The Arbitration Committee is the highest authority on Wikinews (with the exception of the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees, but it is very unlikely they're going to intervene in a dispute). To request arbitration, see Wikinews:Requests for arbitration. They will only accept your request if you've tried all other forms of dispute resolution, and they wish to resolve the dispute.

Current disputes

Tempodivalse (talk · contribs) and Brian McNeil (talk · contribs)

I'd like to bring an ongoing dispute between myself and user:Brian McNeil to the community's attention. We've been on rather strained terms recently due to frequent disagreements, but Brian's latest comments in reaction to an inadvertent edit conflict I find highly inappropriate, such as: [1] [2]. This isn't the first time he's reacted too strongly to a problem or disagreement; for instance, I was kickbanned and de-opped from the #wikinews channel a few weeks ago because we disagreed on something.

Please understand I'm not at all trying to pursue a personal vendetta against Brian - to the contrary, I appreciate his many contributions to Wikinews and I know he's under a lot of stress in real life. However, I find this attitude deeply concerning - it's totally against the principles of basic etiquette and the spirit of a productive, encouraging editing environment. I've tried to get Brian to realise, on multiple occasions, that this is actively hurting us, but he appears unwilling to consider changing his attitude or even apologise for previous indiscretions. I normally don't like stirring up drama like this, and wouldn't have made such a fuss, but it's crossed a line where I don't want to just let it go. I'd like to turn to the community now to ask what, if anything, we should do to try and remedy the situation. Tempodivalse [talk] 22:33, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I am willing to mediate in this dispute resolution, however there are a couple things I need to say/ask before you consider taking this step:

• Have you exhausted other attempts to communicate with BrianMc regarding this issue? Especially, have you attempted to disengage from working in areas you do not need to and where you are sure you will be either in conflict with or an irritation to BrianMc? have you tried either step three or step four above in the dispute resolution?
• Have you informed BrianMc you will be taking this step to resolve the dispute between the two of you?
• I have known BrianMc longer than I have known you, Tempodivalse. You may consider this to bias me in BrianMc's favour, which it likely does simply due to familiarity. Be aware that both parties must agree to any mediator choice, and both should feel very comfortable with whomever is chosen. - Amgine | ^t 02:03, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• I've talked about this with him on my talk page and other on-wiki pages previously, and had multiple discussions with him in IRC - none of which resulted in much anything. Given that the community is small and I participate in many aspects of Wikinews, it's a bit difficult to avoid coming into contact with Brian sooner or later. The pages linked to in steps three and four are obsolete, so I didn't think there would be much point in going through them.
• Yes. [3]
• I actually didn't have in mind to have a specific mediator, mainly just wanting community suggestions on where to go from here. If we do need a mediator, I'd prefer someone that isn't as familiar with either of us and thus less likely to have inherent biases. Tempodivalse [talk] 02:41, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

WN:TEA, anyone? Benny the mascot (talk) 03:47, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• And, this is the first notice I've seen of this. I certainly overreacted, but I had two edit conflicts while editing from a mobile device; a "lost" edit (conflict) was, perhaps inappropriately titled, but 20+ minutes of explaining myself over the actual earlier conflict was lost in that, and I likely overreacted. I would suggest people actually try editing particularly lengthy pages from a mobile device. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 13:07, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

---

• List of previous disputes
• Archive