User:Ncmvocalist/Wikipedia:Conduct Dispute Resolution Process

The Dispute Resolution process (sometimes also known as a system), exists to resolve unresolved issues that exist between Wikipedia users. Although this process has been designed to address Wikipedia content, as well as the conduct of Wikipedia users, the system is divided into two parts - this page looks at how EA (editor A) and EB (editor B) can use those basics to resolve their Wikipedia conduct issues.

FAQ 1
The foundation of dispute resolution is communication, so talk to EB!!! If you don't talk to EB, he won't know what your issue is!
 * EA believes there is a problem with EB's conduct - what should EA do first?

If EA finds the problem on an article talk page or Wikipedia talk page, then it might be simple to talk there. The most useful place would to use EB's User talk page to talk to EB. EB might respond there, or might use EA's user talk page to respond. If both users are willing, EA and EB may alternatively use email to talk.
 * Where can EA talk to EB?

During this talking phase, EA will point out that he/she finds EB's conduct problematic. Sometimes there won't actually be a major problem - in the case EA and EB agree, then dispute successfully resolved! :)
 * What should EA talk about to EB?

In the case that EB agrees that there is a problem that needs to be addressed, EB is expected to find a way to address that problem voluntarily. For example, EB might follow a revert limitation of 1 revert per week per page if EA has been edit-warring.

In the case that the problems continue and EB either disagrees, or does not satisfactorily address those issues voluntarily, EA is expected to escalate to the next step in dispute resolution.

FAQ 2
This will depend on the case, but essentially, it involves seeking others input to compel a voluntary outcome.
 * What is the "next step in dispute resolution" that EA needs to escalate to if things are still not resolved?

In the case of a civility concern, it will involve making a posting at the Wikiquette Alerts Noticeboard. Here, other editors will make suggestions, advise EA and EB, and in some cases, warn parties. It may so happen that both EA and EB (and EC!) are advised to be more respectful in their comments. If EA and EB follow the advice, then the dispute has been successfully resolved! :)

If EA continues to be uncivil, then EB should escalate to the next step - which would be to open a request for comment on user conduct. Here, more input will be given by the community as to whether EA's conduct is problematic, whether EB's conduct is problematic, and again suggest ways to resolve the issues. At the conclusion of the RfC/U, the parties should take the advice and proceed accordingly - if they do, chances are that the dispute has been resolved successfully! :) If not, and EA continues to engage in problematic conduct, EB should escalate to the next step in dispute resolution.

FAQ 3
Again, it will depend on the case, but it will probably involve an involuntary outcome.
 * What is the "next step in dispute resolution" that EA needs to escalate to if things are still not resolved?

If the problems continues, then the issue may be brought up at WP:ANI where the community will assess the situation. An administrator may respond by using the blocking tool if they feel it is appropriate. Sometimes, an administrator may not be comfortable (or permitted in doing so), so the community will consider imposing involuntary sanctions that limit an users' ability to edit Wikipedia. For example, the community may impose a revert limitation of 1 revert per day per page on EA, if EA has been edit-warring, and EA will be blocked by any administrator if he violates the terms of that revert limitation. Another example, EA may be topic-banned from editing certain topics in Wikipedia if his/her editing in those topics has not been satisfactory.

Hopefully this is where the dispute is resolved. It may take a few retries of this step if certain sanctions are not working, or certain blocks have not been effective. However, if after numerous attempts of all of the above FAQs, the dispute is not resolved, then EA should proceed to the final step.

FAQ 4
This is the step that should be avoided through effective use of the above FAQs. But if all else fails, you resort to this final step - arbitration.
 * OK, so EA has made numerous attempts at the steps prescribed in the above FAQs so far...but the dispute is for some reason still not resolved. What is the "final step"?

Arbitration requests can come about for a variety of reasons. The community will usually opt to pass the problem along to the final resort because it has no choice - that doesn't mean members of the community will not participate in the arbitration process, but rather, it just not possible to get input in that particular period. Sometimes the community will not intervene in certain disputes because it prefers it be handled by the Arbitration Committee. Sometimes the community is unable to come to a consensus on whether there is in fact a problem, and/or precisely how the problem should be handled. Sometimes the community's sanctions are not working, or the community does not have enough eyes on the problem or resources to address the problem.

ArbCom will examine evidence - this is submitted by parties, as well as others. Parties ad others will then make workshop submissions, and ArbCom will then make a proposed decision. The workshop phase is particularly important (at least in principle), as parties, the community, and ArbCom, work together on the content and wording of proposals. After making appropriate revisions to the proposals, ArbCom then vote on a proposed decision and proposals that pass with a majority form part of the final decision. NOTE: the outcomes or remedies from these decisions are usually final, binding, and involuntary.

In the case of EA, it is important to realise that getting ArbCom to force EA to do something can be far worse than if EA simply voluntarily addressed those issues. There isn't much leeway on simple and petty things either, purely and simply because a dispute has advanced too far. In the case of EB, the amount of time and effort that is invested to get to this point will be significant - it may be better to compromise and voluntarily agree with a solution.

If the outcomes imposed by ArbCom are working, they may lessen the severity of these remedies by amending the decision. If the outcomes imposed by ArbCom are not working, ArbCom might increase the severity of the remedies. If the outcomes have expired, ArbCom will generally accept another request for arbitration to hopefully address the problem for once and for all! That is, even if ES files the request for arbitration (and EA is no longer available), EB's conduct may still be the principal subject of another arbitration case.

Some conclusions
If you have a problem with another editor's conduct, communicate with them about it (FAQ1). If they acquiesce that it is stale, non-existent, or not significant, then consider whether the dispute is resolved. If you want more input rather than your lone opinion(s), of if they acquiesce that the conduct is still a problem, then seek further input (FAQ2). [Acquiescance in this context refers principally to actions, but may include statements to that effect.] Both parties should be compelled by the 3rd party input received and should come to a voluntary outcome. Resolving disputes voluntarily in these phases (FAQ 1 and/or FAQ 2) is the most preferred method; it is the most timely method of resolving disputes, and it is one where all parties can be satisfied with the outcome.

If you have been taken to FAQ4 stage, it can be used as a last resort to resolve the dispute, but TAKE NOTE: it is always preferrable to avoid this step altogether. Up until the proposed decision is voted on, even if EA is the subject of another arbitration, EA still has an opportunity to try to listen to others input as in FAQ 2 and voluntarily address their conduct as in FAQ 1. Any wise Wikipedian will give the parties the same advice: do not throw away those opportunities - work it out!!!

If you find that you have real-life committments that prevent you from taking much time to use Wikipedia, then consider using the dispute resolution process later if problems are continuing, and you do have time to edit Wikipedia. However, bear in mind that disputes and conduct problems can become stale when too much time elapses; bitterly holding onto a dispute like a grudge can be just as (if not more) counterproductive than the original problem, and it might be time to move on.