CZ:Dispute Resolution: Difference between revisions

From Citizendium
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>Larry Sanger
No edit summary
m (Text replacement - "CZ:Constabulary Home" to "CZ:Moderator Group")
 
(36 intermediate revisions by 5 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
'''This is a draft proposal under construction.  It might contain good advice but it does not contain established rules, unless they are repeated from elsewhere.'''
'''This page is out-of-date and requires significant revision.'''


== What to do if you have a disagreement ==
----
A '''disagreement''' occurs when you want the article to read one way, and someone else wants it to read another way. A disagreement blows up into a '''conflict''' when both sides will not back down from their positions, which they actively defend.
 
By the [[CZ:Charter|Charter]],
 
'''Article 10:''' In cases of dispute, Citizens have the right to request the help of other Citizens or Editors.
 
'''Article 11:''' Citizens should expect Officers and Editors to be fair and impartial. Biased Officers and Editors shall recuse themselves from their official positions in any dispute resolution process.
 
'''Article 12:''' Dispute resolutions should be resolved on the basis of the evidence and not upon the character, point of view, or politics of the Citizen.  


'''Dialogue toward compromise.''' Not all disagreements need to become full-blown conflicts, and conflicts can be de-escalated to mere disagreements.  When faced with a disagreement, the first thing to do--regardless of the participants--is to engage in a constructive, friendly dialogue on the [[Help:How to use talk pages|talk page]], aimed at ''compromise.''
'''Article 13:''' Citizens shall not have any decision rendered against them in a dispute resolution process for which they have not had opportunity to have their say.  


'''Dialogue professionally, and bear in mind that your dialogue is not necessarily determinative.''' Please make sure that you behave [[CZ:Professionalism|professionally]] as you discuss things. Bear in mind that your dialogue does not necessarily determine the outcome of your disagreement. If one side cannot persuade the other, or if you cannot arrive at a compromise, the issue will be decided by other ''Citizendium'' community mechanisms. We ask only that you trust that these mechanisms will result in a fair and intelligent decision.
'''Article 32:''' The [[CZ:Council|Citizendium Council]] is responsible for content and style policies. In particular, it shall ...


== If a conflict cannot be resolved by dialogue ==
5. adjudicate disputes over content among Authors, Editors, and/or Managing Editor, and impose its decisions upon the content of the Citizendium;


'''Declare impasse and consult an editor or constable.''' Either party can, at any time on an article's talk page, declare that the conflict cannot be resolved through dialogue. The next step is for one of the parties to the conflict to ask ''either'' an editor in a workgroup overseeing the article to decide which position should prevail, ''or''--in certain other cases--a constable.
'''Article 33:''' The Citizendium Council shall enforce its decisions over content by reporting violations of its dispute resolutions to the Constables. Failure to abide by the decisions of the Citizendium Council pursuant to the resolution of a dispute shall be considered a behavioral infraction and subject to action by a Constable.


'''What issues do editors handle?''' Editors, broadly speaking, have authority over content issues.  These include purely factual issues, typically resolved by reference to "objective" sources; neutrality (i.e., that a piece of text is biased, or that some other text needs to be added in order to make a paragraph neutral); the article title; copyediting matters; article level; copyright matters; etc.
'''Article 34:''' The Citizendium Council is responsible for the technical and economic resources of the Citizendium and its related websites.  In particular, it shall:...


'''What issues do constables handle?'''  Constables, broadly speaking, have authority over behavior issues, but it is unlikely that you will have a ''dispute'' per se about such issues. Indeed, since you should avoid characterizing your fellow Citizens' behavior on the wiki (see our [[CZ:Professionalism|Professionalism]] policy), you probably should not be arguing over behavior.  If you are bothered by another Citizen, you should e-mail the Constabulary (at constables [at] citizendium.org).  But constables may also be consulted about certain other simpler matters that editors need not be bothered by; for example, you can ask a constable to delete certain articles [[CZ:Article Deletion Policy#Articles deletable by constables acting on their own recognizance|on their own recognizance]].  Constables may also be consulted about [[CZ:what Citizendium articles are not|what Citizendium articles are not]] as well as about our [[CZ:Policy on Self-Promotion|Policy on Self-Promotion]].
2. develop all rules of civility and behavior for participation on the Citizendium which shall apply equally to all Citizens regardless of status or position, adjudicate alleged violations of the rules, and impose sanctions for violations of the rules;


'''What to do while waiting for a decision.'''  Disputants will of course want to know how to resolve a dispute that is awaiting a decision.  If an interim compromise can be reached, that is ''strongly'' preferable to any other solution.  Moreover, if an editor (or other proper decision-making person or body) has weighed in on the issue, the editor's decision must be followed while under appeal.  Finally, if no other means of reaching an interim solution can be found, the ''first'' version of the disputed text should be used.


== The role of editors in conflict resolution ==
== What to do if you have a disagreement ==
*A '''disagreement''' occurs when you want the article to read one way, and someone else wants it to read another way.  A disagreement blows up into a '''conflict''' when both sides will not back down from their positions, which they actively defend.


'''The extent of editor authority.'''  One of the reasons we have editors on the ''Citizendium'' is precisely to avoid conflict, by placing decisionmaking authority in the hands of experts.  Editors do, therefore, have broad authority over issues about articles in the areas to which they have been assigned.  (Note that they ''do not'' have authority over articles assigned to other workgroups; for those articles, they act as rank-and-file authors.)  Generally, we say that the person who specializes in a particular topic, or who has greater seniority (or both), has the greater authority.  In choosing an editor to consult, one should choose one that is likely to have the greatest strength in the topic.
*Not all disagreements need become full-blown conflicts, and conflicts can be de-escalated to mere disagreements.  When faced with a disagreement, the first thing to do--regardless of the participants--is to engage in a constructive, friendly dialogue on the [[Help:How to use talk pages|talk page]], aimed at ''compromise.'' Some disagreements are only apparent, and dissolve under closer examination.


'''How editors should resolve conflicts.''' Editors should declare clearly that they will resolve a certain conflict, if they wish to do so.  They should focus not on the personal conflicts, saying who is right and who is wrong, but strictly on the matter at issue, defined as narrowly as possible.  Editors are encouraged to articulate compromise positions, where possible, particularly in view of the strict requirements of the ''Citizendium'' [[CZ:Neutrality Policy|Neutrality Policy]].
*Please behave [[CZ:Professionalism|professionally]] as you discuss things.  Bear in mind that your dialogue does not necessarily determine the outcome of your disagreement.  If one side cannot persuade the other, or if you cannot arrive at a compromise, the issue will be decided by other ''Citizendium'' community mechanisms.  We ask only that you trust that these mechanisms will result in a fair and intelligent decision.


'''Conflict between editors and authors.''' Occasionally, an author and an editor have a disagreement over a matter of content within a workgroup to which the editor is assigned.  In such a case, the editor should politely engage the author in order to determine what the author's arguments are, but his or her decision on the matter determines the matter.
*This document does not describe how to resolve ''personal'' conflicts, or friction between competing personalities.  If someone is behaving rudely, e-mail [[CZ:Moderator Group|the Constabulary]].


'''If an author disagrees with an editor after a decision has been made.'''  If an author continues to disagree with an editor after a decision has been made, it is ''not'' appropriate to continue to discuss the matter on the article's talk page.  The author may appeal the matter to the appropriate [[CZ:Workgroups|workgroup]], by e-mailing the Lead Editor of the workgroup.  If there is no Lead Editor, the appeal should be sent to the Editorial Appeals Committee, which will handle all other appeals in lieu of an active Lead Editor for a workgroup.  (See below.)  And, until the Editorial Appeals Committee is established, the author may appeal to the Editor-in-Chief.
*If your disagreement is not with a person but with a body or process--for example, with a resolution of the Citizendium Council or with our article approval process--then e-mail the [[CZ:Managing Editor|Managing Editor]].


'''The Editorial Appeals Committee.'''  (This is is a proposal; it has not been approved by the Editorial Council. --LMS)  If no relevant workgroup has a Lead Editor, content decisions are appealed to the Editorial Appeals Committee, made up of at least five editors, with at least two editors from the sciences and two from the humanities, and no two editors from the same discipline.  These editors are asked to review the reasoning of the editor and/or authors involved in the dispute.  To help them come to a decision, they may consult anyone they wish, but they are especially encouraged to consult credible experts about the specific point under question.  The Editorial Appeals Committee is a subcommittee of the Editorial Council, and all of its decisions are placed before the larger Council, not for approval, but for the broadest sort of oversight.  The broader Council may, if it votes to do so, take up an issue voted on by the Editorial Appeals Committee.  See [[CZ:Editorial Appeals Committee]].
== If a conflict cannot be resolved by dialogue ==


== Procedural disagreements ==
Either party in a dispute can, at any time on an article's talk page, declare that the conflict cannot be resolved through dialogue.  The next step is for one of the parties to the conflict to ask ''either'' an editor in a workgroup overseeing the article to decide which position should prevail, ''or''--in certain other cases--a constable.


'''If the other person refuses to follow the conflict resolution procedure.'''  If a person refuses to follow a conflict resolution procedure--for example, by continuing to place his version of text on a page--then the other person (or the editor or other responsible entity which made the decision) may ask the Constabulary to intervene.  If it is clear to the Constabulary that the person is in fact disobeying the conflict resolution procedures indicated on this page, then the Constabulary should ban the person.  The ban should be permanent, or perhaps until such time as the person agrees to respect the decision made by the community.
'''Editors''' have authority, broadly speaking, over content issues ''that fall in their areas of expertise.''  These include purely factual issues, typically resolved by reference to "objective" sources; neutrality (i.e., that a piece of text is biased, or that some other text needs to be added in order to make a paragraph neutral); the article title; copyediting matters; article level; copyright matters; etc.


'''What to do in case of disagreement about purview.''' Occasionally, the disputants may disagree who, or what, to appeal to.  In such cases, the Constabulary makes the decision; and this decision itself can be appealed to the Judicial Board.
'''Constables''' have authority over behavior issues, but it is unlikely that you will have a ''dispute'' per se about such issues.  Indeed, since you should avoid characterizing your fellow Citizens' behavior on the wiki (see our [[CZ:Professionalism|Professionalism]] policy), you probably should not be arguing over behavior.  If you are bothered by another Citizen, you should e-mail [[CZ:Moderator Group|the Constabulary]] (at constables [at] citizendium.org).  But constables may also be consulted about other simpler matters that editors need not be bothered by; for example, you can ask a constable to delete certain articles [[CZ:Article Deletion Policy#Articles that constables can delete on their own recognizance|on their own recognizance]].  Constables may also be consulted about [[CZ:what Citizendium articles are not|what Citizendium articles are not]] as well as about our [[CZ:Policy on Self-Promotion|Policy on Self-Promotion]].  In all of these content issues, Constables can rule only on ''very obvious'' cases.


What to do if there is a difference in interpretation of existing policy
Disputants will want to know how to resolve a dispute that is awaiting a decision.  If an interim compromise can be reached, that is ''strongly'' preferable to any other solution.  If an editor (or other proper decision-making person or body) has weighed in on the issue, the editor's decision must be followed while under appeal.  Finally, if no other means of reaching an interim solution can be found, the ''first'' version of the disputed text should be used.


What to do if there is disagreement about what workgroup an article is assigned to
== The role of editors in conflict resolution ==


'''The extent of editor authority.'''  One reason we have editors at ''Citizendium'' is to avoid conflict, by placing decisionmaking authority in the hands of experts.  Editors do, therefore, have broad authority over issues about articles in their areas of expertise.  (Note that they ''do not'' have authority over articles assigned to other workgroups; for those articles, they act as rank-and-file authors.)  Generally, we say that the person who specializes in a particular topic, or who has greater seniority (or both), has the greater authority. 


'''How editors should resolve conflicts.'''  Editors should declare clearly that they will resolve a certain conflict, if they wish to do so.  They should focus not on the personal conflicts, saying who is right and who is wrong, but strictly on the matter at issue, defined as narrowly as possible.  Editors are encouraged to articulate compromise positions, where possible, particularly in view of the ''Citizendium'' [[CZ:Neutrality Policy|Neutrality Policy]].


== Miscellaneous issues ==
'''Conflict between editors and authors.'''  Occasionally, an author and an editor have a disagreement over a matter of content within a workgroup to which the editor is assigned.  In such a case, the editor should politely engage the author to determine what the author's arguments are, but his or her decision determines the matter.


'''What to do if there is seems to be no procedure for this type of conflict.''' If there is a type of conflict not covered by this page, the contributor is encouraged to consult our [[CZ:Policy Outline|Policy Outline]].  You may also write the editor-in-chief for guidance.
'''If an author disagrees with an editor after a decision has been made.''' If an author continues to disagree with an editor after a decision has been made, it is ''not'' appropriate to continue to discuss the matter on the article's talk page.


== Procedural issues ==
'''Article 41:''' Appeals of formal decisions shall be possible when a disputant can show an Appeals Board that either: New information is available; or A technical error was made during the previous formal procedure.


'''Article 42:''' An Appeals Board shall consist of Citizens who were not previously directly involved, as follows:
# two members appointed by the Citizendium Council, and
# the Managing Editor or his/her designee.


(1a) Disagreements handled by individual editors: initial disagreement about article content.  The grounds for disagreement are many: purely factual, typically resolved by reference to "objective" sources; neutrality (i.e., that a piece of text is biased, or that some other text needs to be added in order to make a paragraph neutral); article title; copyediting matters; article level; copyright matters; etc.
'''Article 43:'''An Appeals Board may render one of three decisions: it may decide that the disputant does not have new information or that the adjudicating council made no technical error and deny a re-hearing; it may affirm the adjudicating council's decision, in spite of new information or technical error; or it may recognize that new information, a technical error, or both has placed the adjudicating council's decision in error and remand the case to the adjudicating council for rehearing. If the case has been remanded for re-hearing, it is expected that the adjudicating council revise its judgment in light of the appeal.  


(1b) Disagreements handled by workgroups (when established?): disagreement with decisions made about the items in (1a), i.e., appeals; about whether a person is or is not qualified to be an editor; and about templates and rules established by the workgroup.


(1c) Disagreements handled by the Editorial Council: those about content policy that has not yet been settled.
===Guidance===
If a person refuses to follow a conflict resolution procedure--for example, by continuing to place his version of text on a page--then any Citizen may ask the Constabulary to intervene.  If it is clear to the Constabulary that the person is disobeying the conflict resolution procedures indicated on this page, then the Constabulary may ban them.  Occasionally, the disputants may disagree about who, or what, to appeal to.  In such cases, the Constabulary makes the decision; and its decision can be appealed.


Disagreements handled by  
For conflicts not covered by this page, consult the [[CZ:Managing Editor|Managing Editor]].


How to avoid conflict: determine first that there is actually a substantive disagreement that cannot be resolved by dialogue or compromise.


To do: establish the process through which workgroups make decisions; establish Editorial Appeals Workgroup
{{communication}}

Latest revision as of 09:57, 7 March 2024

This page is out-of-date and requires significant revision.

By the Charter,

Article 10: In cases of dispute, Citizens have the right to request the help of other Citizens or Editors.

Article 11: Citizens should expect Officers and Editors to be fair and impartial. Biased Officers and Editors shall recuse themselves from their official positions in any dispute resolution process.

Article 12: Dispute resolutions should be resolved on the basis of the evidence and not upon the character, point of view, or politics of the Citizen.

Article 13: Citizens shall not have any decision rendered against them in a dispute resolution process for which they have not had opportunity to have their say.

Article 32: The Citizendium Council is responsible for content and style policies. In particular, it shall ...

5. adjudicate disputes over content among Authors, Editors, and/or Managing Editor, and impose its decisions upon the content of the Citizendium;

Article 33: The Citizendium Council shall enforce its decisions over content by reporting violations of its dispute resolutions to the Constables. Failure to abide by the decisions of the Citizendium Council pursuant to the resolution of a dispute shall be considered a behavioral infraction and subject to action by a Constable.

Article 34: The Citizendium Council is responsible for the technical and economic resources of the Citizendium and its related websites. In particular, it shall:...

2. develop all rules of civility and behavior for participation on the Citizendium which shall apply equally to all Citizens regardless of status or position, adjudicate alleged violations of the rules, and impose sanctions for violations of the rules;


What to do if you have a disagreement

  • A disagreement occurs when you want the article to read one way, and someone else wants it to read another way. A disagreement blows up into a conflict when both sides will not back down from their positions, which they actively defend.
  • Not all disagreements need become full-blown conflicts, and conflicts can be de-escalated to mere disagreements. When faced with a disagreement, the first thing to do--regardless of the participants--is to engage in a constructive, friendly dialogue on the talk page, aimed at compromise. Some disagreements are only apparent, and dissolve under closer examination.
  • Please behave professionally as you discuss things. Bear in mind that your dialogue does not necessarily determine the outcome of your disagreement. If one side cannot persuade the other, or if you cannot arrive at a compromise, the issue will be decided by other Citizendium community mechanisms. We ask only that you trust that these mechanisms will result in a fair and intelligent decision.
  • This document does not describe how to resolve personal conflicts, or friction between competing personalities. If someone is behaving rudely, e-mail the Constabulary.
  • If your disagreement is not with a person but with a body or process--for example, with a resolution of the Citizendium Council or with our article approval process--then e-mail the Managing Editor.

If a conflict cannot be resolved by dialogue

Either party in a dispute can, at any time on an article's talk page, declare that the conflict cannot be resolved through dialogue. The next step is for one of the parties to the conflict to ask either an editor in a workgroup overseeing the article to decide which position should prevail, or--in certain other cases--a constable.

Editors have authority, broadly speaking, over content issues that fall in their areas of expertise. These include purely factual issues, typically resolved by reference to "objective" sources; neutrality (i.e., that a piece of text is biased, or that some other text needs to be added in order to make a paragraph neutral); the article title; copyediting matters; article level; copyright matters; etc.

Constables have authority over behavior issues, but it is unlikely that you will have a dispute per se about such issues. Indeed, since you should avoid characterizing your fellow Citizens' behavior on the wiki (see our Professionalism policy), you probably should not be arguing over behavior. If you are bothered by another Citizen, you should e-mail the Constabulary (at constables [at] citizendium.org). But constables may also be consulted about other simpler matters that editors need not be bothered by; for example, you can ask a constable to delete certain articles on their own recognizance. Constables may also be consulted about what Citizendium articles are not as well as about our Policy on Self-Promotion. In all of these content issues, Constables can rule only on very obvious cases.

Disputants will want to know how to resolve a dispute that is awaiting a decision. If an interim compromise can be reached, that is strongly preferable to any other solution. If an editor (or other proper decision-making person or body) has weighed in on the issue, the editor's decision must be followed while under appeal. Finally, if no other means of reaching an interim solution can be found, the first version of the disputed text should be used.

The role of editors in conflict resolution

The extent of editor authority. One reason we have editors at Citizendium is to avoid conflict, by placing decisionmaking authority in the hands of experts. Editors do, therefore, have broad authority over issues about articles in their areas of expertise. (Note that they do not have authority over articles assigned to other workgroups; for those articles, they act as rank-and-file authors.) Generally, we say that the person who specializes in a particular topic, or who has greater seniority (or both), has the greater authority.

How editors should resolve conflicts. Editors should declare clearly that they will resolve a certain conflict, if they wish to do so. They should focus not on the personal conflicts, saying who is right and who is wrong, but strictly on the matter at issue, defined as narrowly as possible. Editors are encouraged to articulate compromise positions, where possible, particularly in view of the Citizendium Neutrality Policy.

Conflict between editors and authors. Occasionally, an author and an editor have a disagreement over a matter of content within a workgroup to which the editor is assigned. In such a case, the editor should politely engage the author to determine what the author's arguments are, but his or her decision determines the matter.

If an author disagrees with an editor after a decision has been made. If an author continues to disagree with an editor after a decision has been made, it is not appropriate to continue to discuss the matter on the article's talk page.

Procedural issues

Article 41: Appeals of formal decisions shall be possible when a disputant can show an Appeals Board that either: New information is available; or A technical error was made during the previous formal procedure.

Article 42: An Appeals Board shall consist of Citizens who were not previously directly involved, as follows:

  1. two members appointed by the Citizendium Council, and
  2. the Managing Editor or his/her designee.

Article 43:An Appeals Board may render one of three decisions: it may decide that the disputant does not have new information or that the adjudicating council made no technical error and deny a re-hearing; it may affirm the adjudicating council's decision, in spite of new information or technical error; or it may recognize that new information, a technical error, or both has placed the adjudicating council's decision in error and remand the case to the adjudicating council for rehearing. If the case has been remanded for re-hearing, it is expected that the adjudicating council revise its judgment in light of the appeal.


Guidance

If a person refuses to follow a conflict resolution procedure--for example, by continuing to place his version of text on a page--then any Citizen may ask the Constabulary to intervene. If it is clear to the Constabulary that the person is disobeying the conflict resolution procedures indicated on this page, then the Constabulary may ban them. Occasionally, the disputants may disagree about who, or what, to appeal to. In such cases, the Constabulary makes the decision; and its decision can be appealed.

For conflicts not covered by this page, consult the Managing Editor.


Citizendium Communication
Workgroups | Discussion forum | For non-members | Twitter

|width=10% align=center style="background:#F5F5F5"|  |}

Retrieved from "https://citizendium.org/wiki/index.php?title=CZ:Dispute_Resolution&oldid=927467"