User:FrigidNinja/Adoption/Lesson Five

No matter how well you edit Wikipedia, no matter how simple or obvious your changes might seem, you will most likely eventually end up in a dispute. This will become more and more likely as you get into editing more contentious areas or controversial articles. This lesson will guide you through the steps of dispute resolution, so that you know what to do in the event of a dispute.

Simple resolution

Well, of course I don't expect you to back down. It's obvious that you have an opinion, and no one expects you to simply abandon it. What you should do it attempt to resolve the dispute. This is fairly simple if you remain civil.

First, remember to assume good faith. The other editor involved in the dispute is also trying to improve the encyclopedia. Make sure you remember that. Try to see the situation from their perspective. It's always good if you can quickly come to a compromise.

Keep calm. There's no deadline for the changes you wish to make, and they can wait until the dispute is resolved. Try and be civil, instead of getting angry at the other editor for disagreeing with you. Attempts to resolve the dispute through discussion are always more productive than edit warring, which can lead to a block. Follow the bold, revert, discuss cycle; one editor makes a bold edit that they feel improves the encyclopedia, another editor reverts that edit, and the involved parties then discuss the matter until the dispute is resolved.

During the discussion itself, try to stay in the top three sections of this pyramid. Simply contradicting the other editor will get you nowhere, and the steps below will most likely cause the dispute to escalate. If you are ever faced with personal attacks, just ignore them and focus instead on refuting their argument.

Generally, you will have two ways to respond in an argument: you will either (1) address the argument that the other editor makes, or (2) address the editor personally. During dispute resolution, you should make sure that you only state things falling under the first point. Accusations of attacks, bad faith, ownership, or vandalism will fall under 2. These will fail to relate to the issue at hand, and will only serve to escalate the dispute more.

If you're having trouble keeping cool, take a break for a while. Have a cup of tea, go for a swim, shoot some hoops. Just calm down, and stay away from Wikipedia for a while.

Dispute resolution process

You'd be amazed at how often these steps work if you try them, but if they don't, Wikipedia has several methods of dispute resolution.

Assistance

If you want someone to talk to, but not necessarily to get involved, there's editor assistance. The editors there are experienced and can offer suggestions about how to resolve the situation.

Third opinion

You can also get an uninvolved editor to step in and try to help resolve the dispute. Instructions can be found at WP:3. You can also ask opinions of editors involved with the WikiProject(s) associated with the article, which can be found on the talk page (example).

Request for Comment

Requests for comment can be used to draw a larger amount of attention to the dispute. You'll generally receive more community input than you would from 3O. You can also request comment on a user. This is exceedingly rare, and can only be used if at least two editors have had the same problem with an editor. Don't take this lightly.

Noticeboards

You can also post questions on an appropriate noticeboard.

Mediation

For severe content disputes that haven't been resolved after all other steps have been taken, the Mediation committee specializes in resolving disputes.

Arbitration

I hope you'll never need to take a dispute this far. Arbitration is the final resort for disputes concerning user conduct. The community has elected its most trusted members to resolve serious cases. Have a look if you want, but try not to end up there.

Remember

You could be wrong! You may be acting against consensus. But as long as you remember that, and stay in the top three sections of the pyramid, there's nothing wrong with disagreeing. Make sure, however, that you realize when you're flogging a dead horse.

Questions?

When you're ready, I'll post the test. Frigid Ninja