ৱিকিপিডিয়া:মতবিৰোধ সমাধান

For dispute resolution requests, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution requests. For the dispute resolution noticeboard, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. For dispute resolution involving the Open-source Ticket Request System ("OTRS"), see our volunteer response team.

This page documents a procedural policy of Wikipedia.

চমুপথবোৰ: WP:DR WP:DISPUTE

সংক্ষেপে এই পৃষ্ঠাখন: Resolve disputes calmly, through civil discussion and consensus-building on relevant discussion pages. There are several available options to request opinions from editors outside the dispute: other dispute resolution mechanisms include requests for comments, mediation or, after all other methods have been tried, arbitration.

This policy describes what to do when you have a dispute with another editor. See Wikipedia:Wikiquette and the essay Staying cool when the editing gets hot for more tips. Also please remember that Wikipedia is not about winning.

The "dispute resolution" sidebar (right) has direct links to filing requests for many of the dispute resolution levels, but requesting dispute resolution involves different guidelines and application processes for each level. Dispute resolution requests can help familiarize you with each of them.

Avoiding disputes

চমুপথ: WP:Discussion

A variety of methods exist for helping to positively resolve disputes, before using formal processes or third-party intervention. Disputes or grievances should always be reacted to in the first instance by approaching, in good faith, the editor or editors concerned and explaining what you find objectionable and why you think so. This can be done on the talk page of the article or on the user page.

Focus on content

চমুপথ: WP:FOC

অতিৰিক্ত তথ্য: Wikipedia:Editing policy

The most important first step is to focus on content, and not on editors. Wikipedia is built upon the principle of collaboration and assuming that the efforts of others are in good faith is important to any community.

When you find a passage in an article that you find is biased or inaccurate, improve it if you can. If that is not easily possible, and you disagree with a point of view expressed in an article, don't just delete it. Rather, balance it with what you think is neutral. Note that unreferenced text may be tagged or removed because of our policy on Verifiability.

To help other editors understand the reasoning behind your edits, always explain your changes in the edit summary. If an edit is potentially contentious, explain why you made the change and how it improves the article. If your reasoning is complex, add a section to the talk page of the article to explain it and refer to that section in the edit summary. If your edit gets reverted, you can discuss the reversion with other editors on the talk page.

In summary: Don't take others' actions personally. Explain to them what you're doing, and always be prepared to change your mind.

Stay cool

নীতিৰ সংক্ষিপ্ত: WP:DISENGAGE

Most situations are not urgent. Please give both yourself and the other party some time. Often it helps to just take a deep breath and sleep on it. Don't worry! You can always fix the problem later. (You can go back to the page history of an article at any time, to find the version of the article that you last worked on, and compare that to the current version to see whether there are still things that you'd like put in or taken out.)

Take a long term view. In due course you will probably be able to return and carry on editing it, when the previous problems no longer exist and the editor you were in dispute with might themselves move on. In the meantime the disputed article will evolve, other editors may become interested and they will have different perspectives if the issue comes up again.

This is particularly helpful when disputing with new users as it gives them a chance to familiarize themselves with Wikipedia's policy and culture. Focus your contributions on another article where you can make constructive progress.

Discuss with the other party

Stay in the top three sections of this pyramid.

অতিৰিক্ত তথ্য: Wikipedia:Negotiation

When discussing an issue, remember to stay cool. If you encounter rude or inappropriate behavior, don't respond likewise. Take the other editor's perspective into account. Assume that an editor is acting in good faith until it's absolutely clear that they're not. It's at that point where you should consider dispute resolution processes that involve third parties.

Talking to other parties is not a formality; it's an imperative to the smooth running of any community. Not discussing will make people less sympathetic to your position and may prevent you from effectively using later stages in dispute resolution. In contrast, sustained discussion and serious negotiation between the parties, even if not immediately (or even remotely) successful, shows that you are trying to find a solution.

Also consider negotiating a truce or compromise. This is also important if you intend to solicit outside opinions because it allows others to consider the issue fairly without the confusion of constant ongoing edits.

Seeking preliminary advice and feedback to resolve the dispute

অতিৰিক্ত তথ্য: Wikipedia:Requesting dispute resolution

If the previous steps fail to resolve the dispute, try one of the following methods. Which ones you choose and in what order depends on the nature of the dispute and the preferences of people involved.

Seek some general advice

The Dispute resolution noticeboard can help diffuse small content and conduct issues, and assist in pointing people to the best forum for resolving larger issues. The noticeboard is a good first point of call for disputes where the nature of the dispute is unclear and in need of clarification. It can also assist if the dispute needs raising at another venue. This noticeboard is not designed to retake existing disputes; the need to discuss issues in a calm and civilised manner is important.

The noticeboard is monitored by users experienced in resolving disputes, so they are able to assist you in resolving the matter at hand.

Editor assistance

Editor assistance helps editors find someone experienced to provide you one-on-one advice and feedback. While not a required part of dispute resolution, it is designed to help you understand how to clearly and civilly express your views and work toward consensus. You may request an assistant's help at any time, whether you're involved in dispute resolution or not. Assistants can also help you find the best way to resolve your dispute or issue.

Wikiquette assistance

Turn to Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance for impolite, uncivil or other difficult communications with editors. First, however, consider ignoring incivility – you can often get much more accomplished by rising above uncivil comments and staying focused on the task at hand.

RfCN

Requests for comment on usernames is the main avenue for bringing attention to usernames which may be inappropriate.

Resolving content disputes

অতিৰিক্ত তথ্য: Wikipedia:Requesting dispute resolution

If the previous steps fail to resolve the dispute, but the dispute has been identified as a content dispute, any of the following methods can be tried. Such disputes often involve questions over whether particular content in an article (or proposed content for an article) are in compliance with site policies (such as WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NPOV, and so on).

Ask for a third opinion

If you need neutral outside opinions in a dispute involving only two editors, turn to Wikipedia:Third opinion.

Ask about the subject

Ask at a subject-specific Wikipedia:WikiProject talk page. Usually, such projects are listed on top of the article talk page.

Ask for help at a relevant noticeboard

নীতিৰ সংক্ষিপ্ত: WP:SEEKHELP

If your dispute is related to one of the following topics, you may wish to post about it in one of the below locations, to get the opinions of other editors familiar with similar disputes. There is also a new noticeboard that can help direct you to the best noticeboard for your questions or issues that need to be addressed, it is called the Dispute resolution noticeboard. It can also be used for resolving simple disputes regarding conduct or content, but isn't necessarily the best forum to take complex issues. It can help point you in the right direction for these matters, however.

Specialised content issues

Biographies of Living Persons noticeboard – to raise questions and alerts about possible problems with a living person's biography
Conflict of Interest (COI) noticeboard – to ask about possible COI
Ethnic and cultural conflicts noticeboard – for issues related to national, religious, ethnic, or other cultural conflicts
Sockpuppet investigations – for help in tracking down sockpuppets

General content issues

External links noticeboard – to raise questions and alerts about external links (including those that are not being used to verify article content)
Fringe theories noticeboard – to report theories that may be being given undue weight in articles
Neutrality noticeboard – for discussion of whether or not parts of an article are meeting WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE
No Original Research noticeboard – to raise questions and alerts about material that might be original research or original synthesis
Notability noticeboard – for discussion of whether or not a subject is notable
Reliable Sources noticeboard – for discussion of whether or not a source is reliable

Informal mediation

If things are getting a bit tricky, it might be useful to ask some cool heads to look in and help out. Sometimes editors who provide third opinions or respond to requests for comments may be willing to help mediate a dispute, if it is requested. The Mediation Cabal also assists in settling disputes without turning to formal mediation, and is a good place to learn dispute resolution techniques.

Formal mediation

Request formal mediation of the dispute from the Mediation Committee. Mediation is a voluntary process in which a neutral person works with the parties to a dispute. The mediator helps guide the parties into reaching an agreement that can be acceptable to everyone. When requesting formal mediation, be prepared to show that you tried to resolve the dispute using the steps listed above, and that all parties to the dispute are in agreement to mediate. Mediation cannot take place if all parties are not willing to take part. Mediation is only for disputes about Article Content, not for complaints about user conduct.

See Wikipedia:Requests for mediation#File and Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Guide for guidance in filing a request.

RfC through article talk pages

Requests for comment through article talk pages is the remaining avenue for requesting outside input on article content or proposed article content. Unlike mediation, RfC through article talk pages can still proceed even if a party is unwilling to participate.

Resolving user conduct disputes

If the dispute has been identified as a dispute which involves user conduct, one of the following methods can be tried. Such disputes often involve complaints concerning the actions of an user (such as how an editor edits or the comments that editor makes during talk page discussions).

Sensitive issues and functionary actions

অতিৰিক্ত তথ্য: Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee, Wikipedia:CheckUser, Wikipedia:Oversight, Wikipedia:Harassment, আৰু Wikipedia:Volunteer Response Team

A small number of disputes involve sensitive or non-public information. These include issues where an Arbitrator, Checkuser or Oversighter has stated a privacy issue exists in the case, and disputes where there is a concern of a sensitive or private nature. Examples:

Non-public details - Issues where details and evidence are not accessible to all participants or to the community as a whole. This can also happen due to copyright or privacy reasons, BLP, or when the material is on an unsuitable external link;
"Outing" concerns - When discussion may in effect mean "outing", for example if there is a concern that a user is editing with a secret conflict of interest and the evidence would tend to identify them;
Serious matters - The issue involves legal concerns, harassment, or allegations that are very serious or perhaps defamatory;
Advice on divisive and sensitive issues - The issue may potentially be very divisive and advice is needed on how best to handle it. (sock-puppetry by an administrator is one example)

Disputes or issues of this kind should usually be referred to the functionaries mailing list or Arbitration Committee. In some cases it may be possible to seek advice from an uninvolved trusted administrator by IRC, email or other private means.

Actions tagged as CheckUser, Oversight, OTRS or Arbitration Committee

Where an action is marked as CheckUser, Oversight, OTRS or Arbitration Committee, that action should not be reverted without checking beforehand. The presumption is that they have a good reason, and those aware of the reason may need time to recheck, consult, and respond. Sometimes the relevant talk page or other wiki pages will have more details and these are always a good first place to check.

Such actions, if disputed, should initially be raised (by email if necessary) with the agent or functionary concerned. Where a dispute about OTRS actions cannot be resolved in this manner, it should be referred to the OTRS administrators. Where a dispute about CheckUser and Oversighter actions cannot be resolved in this manner, it should be referred to the functionaries mailing list or the Audit Subcommittee where appropriate. Disputes about ArbCom actions should be referred to the Arbitration Committee.

RfC/U

Requests for comment on user conduct is the main avenue for disputes about user conduct. Requests for comment on user conduct have minimum requirements that need to be satisfied: at least two users must have tried (and failed) to resolve the problem with the user on the user's talk page.

Last resort: Arbitration

অতিৰিক্ত তথ্য: Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee, Wikipedia:Arbitration policy, and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration

অতিৰিক্ত তথ্য: Wikipedia:Arbitration guide

If you have taken all other reasonable steps to resolve the dispute, and the dispute is not over the content of an article, you can request arbitration. Be prepared to show that you tried to resolve the dispute by other means. Arbitration differs from mediation in that the Arbitration Committee will consider the case and issue a decision, instead of merely assisting the parties in reaching an agreement. If the issue is decided by arbitration, you will be expected to abide by the result. If the case involves serious user misconduct, arbitration may result in a number of serious consequences up to totally banning someone from editing, as laid out in the arbitration policy. Note that arbitration is normally for disputes about user conduct, while mediation is normally for disputes about article content.

For urgent situations

Some situations can be sufficiently urgent or serious that dispute resolution steps are not equipped to resolve the issue. Such situations can be forwarded to the appropriate venue.

To request permanent deletion of personal information: Wikipedia:Requests for oversight.
To request an unblock (if you are blocked): place the code: {{unblock| your reason for unblock }} on your talk page. You may also contact the blocking admin via email (navigate to their userpage or user talk page and click "E-mail this user").
To report vandalism: Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism.
To report blatantly inappropriate usernames, such as usernames that are obscene or inflammatory: Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention.
To report suspected sockpuppetry: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations.
To report urgent violations of Wikipedia's policies on Personal Attacks: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
To report edit warring: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR.
To report a user's conduct which needs other urgent attention from an administrator: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard.

The Administrators' Noticeboards are not the place to raise disputes over content, or reports of abusive behaviour. Reports that do not belong at these noticeboards will be closed, and discussions will need to be re-posted at an appropriate forum, including the new dispute resolution noticeboard. Administrators are not referees, and have limited authority to deal with abusive editors.

Words of caution

Dispute resolution is sometimes used by editors to try to game the system. This generally backfires badly. Remember that dispute resolution mechanisms are ultimately there to enable editors to collaboratively write an encyclopedia – not to win personal or political battles.