Wikipedia:Behavior that disrupts dispute resolution

Wikipedia has multiple dispute resolution mechanisms intended to enable editors to collaboratively write an encyclopedia. These include platforms for settling content disputes as well as behavior of editors, and range from informal, nonbinding boards to boards like the Administrators' Noticeboard/Incidents that can levy sanctions and blocks. At most of these levels, the input of uninvolved editors, both administrators and regular users, is encouraged to give a fresh, unbiased perspective on the dispute at hand. This process can be disrupted, however, by the incautious behavior of editors, both involved and uninvolved. This essay seeks to identify common behaviors which are counterproductive to dispute resolution and should be avoided.

Long Initial Reporting Posts
Most boards instruct users to "avoid an extensive discussion of the problem or issue on this page." The user making the report should state the problem simply, and then rely on diffs for substantiation. Wikipedia dispute resolution forums are not courtrooms, and the purpose of the report is not to argue a case, but rather to bring a situation to the attention of the community, and then allow the community to reach consensus on the situation based on the facts, not the merits of arguments. Also, long reporting statement can actually discourage active involvement by uninvolved editors.

Failing to Notify Reported Editor
Noticeboards require users originating a report on another user or users to notify them on their User Talk page. Failure to do so, whether deliberate or inadvertent, can lead to the reported user feeling he is being judged without being given a chance to defend himself.

Debate
As has been stated above, the purpose of dispute resolution is to bring a situation to the attention of the community so that the community can reach consensus based on the facts of the situation, not the merits of one editor's arguments over the other. Dispute resolution is not a debate competition. As the dispute resoluton policy states: "Remember that dispute resolution mechanisms are ultimately there to enable editors to collaboratively write an encyclopedia – not to win personal or political battles." Every editor, whether involved or uninvolved, has a responsibility to remember that the purpose of dispute resolution is to resolve a dispute, not win a debate. Failure to keep this in mind often results in disruption of the dispute resolution process.

Reporting Editor
As mentioned before, reporting editors should be concise in reporting, rely on diffs, and avoid making an argument as much as possible. Bring the situation to the attention of the community, and then let them decide. Reporting editors who are too eager to make an argument may actually defeat that objective by diminishing their appearance of neutrality.

It's also best if reporting editors step back from overly active involvement in the discussion after presenting the situation. If an error in fact is stated, by all means point it out, but it is not necessary to provide a rebuttal to every uninvolved editor who disagrees with you, and is in fact counterproductive to your "case" to do so, as well as increasing the contentiousness of the discussion.

Reported Editor
Reported editors should similarly be careful not to be too active in the discussion. One concise answer to the reporting editor's comments is usually sufficient. Though errors of fact should be corrected, it is best to avoid replying to the opinions offered by uninvolved editors, both those that are favorable and those that are unfavorable to you. Attempting to refute the unfavorable ones may give the impression of defensiveness, while replying to the favorable ones may give the impression of pandering; they are agreeing with you, so let them speak for themselves.

Uninvolved Editors
Once uninvolved editors have given their opinions, there is no need for them to post rebuttals to the opinions of other uninvolved editors they disagree with. As long as the facts are correct, let the preponderence of opinion speak for itself. Everyone's opinion is obvious from their first post, you don't "win" by "refuting" other people's opinions, you certainly aren't going to change them that way, and it's simply unconstructive to the point of being disruptive. Trying to refute others' opinions as can also make the discussion so daunting, both in thickness of text and combativeness that it discourages more uninvolved editors from posting their opinions.

This debating also creates a new conflict which shifts the attention away from the conflict and behavior of the involved parties. It can embolden disruptive editors who think they have found a "champion" in one uninvolved editor that has taken their "side". You may believe that a particular involved editor needs defending against an unfair charge, but remember that the next time around it may be that someone else is vigorously defending someone you thought was out of line, and that championing will embolden them against your valid concerns. Remember, too, that the purpose of a discussion is not to side with a particular editor, but to help BOTH editors edit more constructively. This is especially important to remember in informal forums where no formal sanctions are administered.

Uninvolved editors may certainly address the comments of either the reporting editor or the reported editor, but it is important to recognize when the discussion is futile. If you have stated your opinion twice and the person keeps arguing with you and you feel he/she just doesn't "get it", it is best to simply withdraw, rather than continue arguing. This is not conceding the point, as your position is still there for anyone to read.

Sarcasm
It is important to remember that many people who file an ANI report are already frustrated. To an uninvolved editor, their complaint may appear trivial, or even petty. It may be all those things; on the other hand, it may actually be perfectly legitimate, and uninvolved editors just don't have the full picture from a long-running problem. Either way, the person who is filing the report likely already feels they are being attacked, and is coming to ANI to stop the attack. The worst thing an uninvolved editor, or an administrator can do, is be dismissive of the report or even outright mock the person for filing the report, this is guaranteed to escalate the situation and alienate the filing editor from constructive participation in Wikipedia. Unfortunately, this has been happening all too often in dispute resolution fora on Wikipedia, but especially ANI. In a recent example, an editor filed a complaint against what seemed to him the latest in a long line of personal attacks and failures to assume good faith by another editor. Very rapidly, several uninvolved non-administrators responded with sarcastic comments:
 * "Your feelings must really be hurt. Good thing there's ANI to handle that."
 * "I thought AN/I was a "safe space". I have bystander distress syndrome just from reading this. Egregious, bordering on libel. Yes!"
 * "It may just be me, but this looks like a content dispute with a side dish of butthurt."

Predictably, the ANI devolved into further incivility from there, and was closed without any action being taken against anyone. Two hours later, one of the uninvolved editors who made the above comments posted outside the closed thread:
 * "We should have a Hurt and Upset Feelings Festival WP:HUFF noticeboard where people can talk about how mean someone's been to them."

The filing editor asked the closing administrator to review the above comment. The admin's response was:
 * "X makes those kinds of comments at ANI. Everybody knows it, and now you do too. He's being snarky, not uncivil. Stop paying attention and it won't bother you."

Whether the filing editor's case for the ANI was strong or weak, the uninvolved editors' and the admin's comments were unhelpful, and served to inflame conflict and negative feelings between editors, not WP:COOL calm things down. Another editor took a different approach. He began by saying of the other uninvolved editors:
 * "I don't think any of the above editors took a look at the significant and wall-o-text discussions that were taking place on the talk page. Mockery is unhelpful, it's an attempt to assert superiority without conveying anything useful, to me it has always asserted the opposite; a lack of anything worth saying."

This editor went on to acknowledge that the words of the person the OP editor was reporting had been "terse at best", but then went on to explain that he did not feel the person's actions rose to the level of administrative action. This was the proper way to handle this situation. Unfortunately, the good done by this last uninvolved editor was overpowered by the harm done by the first three, and by an administrator who acknowledged she was aware of an editor's habitually unhelpful behavior in a dispute resolution forum, but was unwilling to use her tools to stop this behavior. Wikipedia is losing editors, and one of the reasons given for this is an "abrasive atmosphere". If people come to Wikipedia's dispute resolution processes expecting tempered mediation and only receive anarchic abuse and indifferent admins, this will only drive more away.

Editorializing in Closing Remarks
Administrators have the final word in determining the outcome of a discussion when they close it. As such, it is imperative that they, above all other participants, appear neutral and unbiased. Remember that many editors have a negative perception of administrators and are very sensitive to any indications that an administrator may be "abusing" his or her power. Judgemental tone, sarcasm, etc. should be avoided. A "just the facts, ma'am" tone with summary of the consensus, or a statement that no consensus has been achieved and suggestions of the next step to take should be strived for.

Summary
The proof of the pudding is in the eating; behavior which increases conflict between editors is unproductive and should be avoided, even if that behavior is not explicitly prohibited by Wikipedia policy.