FamilySearch Wiki talk:Dispute resolution
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Dispute resolution page.|
Is there an official dispute resolution policy yet? Not yet, but we invite all community members to review the following ideas, add comments, or add additional ideas to the list. A great model for ways to resolve disputes is at Wikipedia: Dispute Resolution. For additional ideas see, Wikipedia: Negotiation; Wikipedia:Etiquette. FamilySearch Research Wiki invites your comments and other ideas related to the tools that might be implemented:
- 1 Request another opinion
- 2 Requests for comments
- 3 Ask for policy clarification
- 4 Civility issues
- 5 Protecting pages with unresolved disputes
- 6 See Also
- 7 Brief clarifications?
- 8 Evaluate policy/process to help users through it
Request another opinion[edit source]
- Ask another community member for their opinion.
- How would someone find another community member to ask?
- Is there a sign-up list to participate in the Wiki as one who would volunteer to give a third opinion?
Requests for comments[edit source]
- If community members have a dispute about content, they could ask the "community" for their comments on the subject being disputed.
- How would a member request comments from the entire Wiki community?
- Does the Community Portal page have a section for "Requests for Comment" ?
- Should a specific page be created for use as "Requests for Comment" ? If so, how would the page be maintained?
Ask for policy clarification[edit source]
- If the dispute is related to a policy, the community member could ask for clarification on the policy if needed.
- Who should the member ask? Administrators? Someone else?
- How does a member request clarification?
Civility issues[edit source]
- If disputes are a result of civility issues, then what?
Protecting pages with unresolved disputes[edit source]
- Should pages be protected when disputes are not resolved?
- How would someone request that a page needs protecting due to an unresolved dispute?
- Who reviews the request? Who protects the page from further edits until the dispute is resolved? Who verifies the dispute was resolved and removes the protected status?
- What happens if the dispute is never resolved?
See Also[edit source]
- Some useful best practices are available in Conflict in Cyberspace: How to Resolve Conflict Online by Kali Munro, M.Ed., Psychotherapist, 2002.
Brief clarifications?[edit source]
I don't have time to research and write these myself, but I'd love to see some clarifications added to this page:
- On the bullet list item about consulting a third party, some explanation as to where to find a third party who is objective.
- A brief explanation of the difference between mediation and arbitration and whether one is expected to pursue them in a certain order.
Evaluate policy/process to help users through it[edit source]
Reviewing the process on this page, I've been trying to see what in my mind would help clarify how people can look at the policy, to help them through the process. Here are some initial thoughts. These are some initial thoughts after trying to understand what an individual will be faced with and looking through some of the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution processes.
This policy describes what to do when you have a dispute with another editor.
Talk to each other[edit source]
When disputes arise between community members they are strongly encouraged to talk together and resolve their differences. When there are disputes, it is very important to:
- Accept that each party has the best interest of the wiki at heart
- Use the talk pages to discuss issues
- Follow the Etiquette Guidelines
- Stay cool when the editing gets hot
Ask for another opinion[edit source]
If you can't come to a resolution between parties that way, you should ask for some outside assistance from other community members. A few of the options to explore are:
- Ask for a third opinion
- Ask about the subject
- Ask about a policy
Request a comment(Can we somehow combine this process with the 3rd opinion process to simplify things for users? Because we have such a small group of people who might participate, it might be good to combine these two ideas into one) Informal mediation(as we don't have people to fill this role yet, would it hurt the process to allow things to go straight to mediation from here?)
If discussing the problem doesn't bring it to a resolution, you may request Mediation. Mediation is a more formal process whereby a Mediator helps to facilitate the conversation between the editors.
If Mediation doesn't resolve the problem, the issue may need to be escalated to the Arbitration board. This is requested by the Mediator.
Thoughts? I was thinking that putting it into a step 1/2/3 process will clarify what needs to be done, and shortening the bulleted list will help people focus on just a couple of options that could be helpful. -- janellv (talk | contribs) 03:10, 20 August 2011 (UTC)