WiKirby:Dispute policy

From WiKirby, your independent source of Kirby knowledge.
Jump to navigationJump to search

Editing a wiki is a creative pursuit first and foremost. As such, editors may come to blows over disagreements regarding how things should be written or formatted, or what should be done with certain articles or subjects. The following is WiKirby's formal dispute policy containing a step-based guide on how to settle a dispute. Remember that discussion should remain civil at all times.

What is a dispute?

A dispute is defined on WiKirby as the formal state of two or more editors disagreeing on the properties of a page, whether that be the page's contents, formatting, name, categories, or other properties.

In order for a dispute to be declared, the following chain of events must take place:

  • An editor goes to a page and makes a revision. (this revision could be anything)
  • A second editor comes along and reverts that change, bringing the article closer (if not all the way back) to its original state. The second editor must include a valid reason for making this revert in his/her edit summary.
  • The first editor (or a third editor) sees this revert and does not agree with the edit summary reason.

Once all three steps are done, a dispute is declared. Once a dispute is declared, the page should have a {{dispute}} template placed on it, and the page must not be altered further along the lines of the dispute until it is settled. Any violation of this rule after being informed of this policy will result in a three-strike offense as defined by the block policy.

Settling a dispute

Once a dispute is declared, the following step-by-step procedure should be followed to settle it. Disputes will automatically be voided if two weeks pass without a resolution (though they can be renewed later if necessary). Disputes may end at any step (the sooner the better):

Step 1: Argue the case

If two editors come to dispute over certain aspects of the wiki or specific points, the editor who initially submitted the disputed revision (or the third editor taking up the mantle) should take it to the appropriate discussion page (the article's talk page for specific disputes, or one of the editor's talk pages for personal ones). There, the two disputing editors should debate the merits of their preferred choices and attempt to come to an agreement.

Step 2: Attempt a compromise

If an agreement cannot be reached through a debate, the disputing editors should attempt a compromise by finding some middle-ground solution.

Step 3: Call a vote

If a compromise cannot be reached and the dispute is not personal in nature, an informal poll should be opened on the appropriate discussion page to gauge what the community thinks is the appropriate solution. Disputing members should not tamper with results and should give at least three (3) days for a decision to be reached. A project page can be created to hold the vote if need be.

Step 4: Reach out to a senior third party

If step 3 fails, a non-disputing administrator+ should be called in to settle the debate. The administrator in question should remain impartial and review the facts before proceeding. Any attempt by disputing users to butter up the administrator will result in a stern warning or block.

The administrator should then make an executive decision to settle the dispute. Users are expected to abide by the decision.

Step EX: The nuclear option

If somehow step 4 fails, the Editor-in-Chief should be brought in to settle the dispute. Things will likely not be pretty if this has to happen.

Disputing official policy

If anything written in the current policy is disagreeable to the editor, he/she has a right to offer suggestions to change specific details to the Editor-in-Chief. The Editor-in-Chief is at liberty to reject these suggestions with no appeal, but will always be willing to hear them out and consider them. Rank will not be a factor in whether or not suggestions are considered, but standing might be.