Wikipedia:Refer it upward

The UK's Money Laundering Regulations 1993 had a clever idea.

It's not reasonable for a random person to make a decision on the fly as to whether someone else is money laundering.

Instead, individuals within the financial system simply had to refer anything they thought might be a money laundering issue upwards. Tell your supervisor. Drop a line to a manager. Let someone else know that you've got a question about this transaction.

The purpose of the regulation was to make sure that individuals were not personally liable for money laundering if they'd done something. They had asked someone else to look at the matter, someone with (at least potentially) greater knowledge or experience than them – even in non-hierarchical organisations.

Here at Wikipedia, the same attitude largely applies. If in doubt, refer it upward. Ask someone else with more experience to help. Ask at a noticeboard. Above all, don't edit war over something when there's an option available to refer it upward (and don't edit war at all, but that's not the point here).

This is not easy to do because we're all human here. Referring something upward requires us to admit that we have less knowledge or experience or power than someone else, which humans don't find easy.

Referring upward means that our instant revert – so satisfying! – is converted to a wait for someone else to get involved. On some noticeboards, that could be several days with something we think shouldn't be left visible in public for all to see.

Referring upward also means the possibility of being told that we are wrong, by random other editors or by admins. The thing we thought was terrible was fine, for clear or obscure reasons that someone with more experience or knowledge will tell us. And guess what? They'll all be pleased that we came to them for help and advice. That will always count for more than being wrong in passing ever counts against us.

Admins, Bureaucrats, even ArbCom members regularly refer their own editing upward for others to doublecheck and they rightly get praised for doing so, even when the consensus is that they were wrong.

Straight to ANI!
A warning: there's a natural feeling that we should go right to the top, as there's a perception that doing so solves things quickly. But most things need a slightly slower approach whether we like it or not.

Please consider:


 * Biographies of living persons noticeboard
 * Current events noticeboard
 * Dispute resolution noticeboard
 * External links noticeboard
 * Fringe theories noticeboard
 * Neutral point of view noticeboard
 * Original research noticeboard
 * Reliable sources noticeboard
 * Resource requests
 * Spam blacklist requests

Yes, there are different levels of speed, help and friendliness at each of these. We are at liberty to report there and then walk away with our heads held high even if we got castigated for posting. As long as we weren't edit warring, any lack of good faith on the part of editors there is their problem, not ours.

Facts and options
What should we do when we refer something upward? In the heat of the moment, there's a huge temptation to spin things in our own favour. And this often works: busy people will assume your good faith and seek to help. But we need to go back to the Money Laundering Regulations analogy. What we're seeking is advice and guidance from people who are more knowledgeable or experienced than us. They need the full facts. If we don't give them everything, succinctly, and they notice, the process will be slowed down as they investigate everybody's edits in minute detail. Or nobody will help and suddenly we're on our own again.

Presenting the full facts of the matter, including where we feel we made mistakes of our own or could've handled things better, assists others in helping us and speeds the process up. For instance, were we just as uncommunicative as the other editor until the matter caught fire? Say so up front. Doing so helps everybody, including us when we report things upward.

Presenting the options we see as available also helps. That doesn't mean we should agitate for a community ban right off the bat. Instead, saying something like "I'd like this to stop, which could be achieved by page protection, blacklisting the link or blocking the IP" shows that we're concerned with solving the issue, not just seeking revenge. An added bonus is that the people we have referred it upward to are presented with a menu of choices rather than one single step that they might not be prepared to take; and they may have an extra option we haven't thought about that would work even better.

(In the Money Laundering Regulations, the person you refer it upward to has several options for what to do next, and it's seen as helpful to be honest with them – "I exchanged the dollars for francs last time" – and it's seen as helpful to narrow those options to aid their decision making – "I'd like you to speak with the customer, double check the receipts or advise the receiving bank" – without appearing to be tying their hands.)

I've fought everyone but now I've gone to a noticeboard so I'm forgiven!
Referring upward isn't a "get out of jail free" card – if you're in the wrong and it's very clear you're in the wrong, people will say so – but referring it upward and disengaging gives us the moral high ground that is instantly lost by edit warring, making personal attacks or doing the various other things that rile neutral observers.

And we must be prepared to be told we're wrong, even over major things, even when we know we're right. Of course, it's possible to refer it upward from there, within the laws of diminishing returns, but we must also be aware when we're not dropping the stick and backing slowly away from the horse carcass.

Our responsibility ends at the point we referred it upward. Nobody was ever sanctioned on Wikipedia for walking away from a fight someone else was trying to start.

This was referred upward to me and the referrer is in the wrong!
We were not in the wrong for referring it upward. As the "upward" person, you have the right to decline to do anything, offer advice to us, and, in the worst circumstances of failing to drop the stick, tell us we're getting vexatious and need to study the rules harder.

But having something referred upward is never wrong in and of itself. Don't criticise people for asking for help, ever.