CZ:Dispute Resolution

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.

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.

Dialogue toward compromise. 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.

Dialogue professionally, and bear in mind that your dialogue is not necessarily determinative. 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.

Personal conflicts. This document does not describe how to resolve personal conflicts, or friction between competing personalities. If someone is behaving rudely, you should e-mail the Constabulary.

If your disagreement is with a body or process. If your disagreement is not with a person but instead with a body or process--for example, with a resolution of the Editorial Council or with our article approval process--then feel free to e-mail the Ombudsman.

If a conflict cannot be resolved by dialogue

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.

What issues do editors handle? 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 issues do constables handle? 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.

What to do while waiting for a decision. 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. 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

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 strict requirements 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

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.

If there is disagreement about purview. 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 to the Judicial Board.

If there seems to be no procedure for a type of conflict. If there is a type of conflict not covered by this page, the contributor is encouraged to consult CZ:Organization. You may also write the editor-in-chief for guidance.

How appeals work

Appeals: the basics. The actual requirements for an appeal to a given body are established by each appeals body. These include:

• Constabulary appeals
• Appeals to discipline workgroups
• Appeals to the Editorial Appeals Committee (not yet established)
• Judicial Board appeals (not yet established)

Generally, if you want to appeal a decision, you should inform the person or body which made the decision you're appealing, and then send a mail explaining your case to a representative of the body in question. The previous decision remains in effect while your appeal is being considered.

Authors--i.e., any contributor in good standing--have the right to appeal decisions of editors and constables. Such appeals must not, however, be made frivolously, or merely because one disagrees with a decision. Authors should attempt to appeal decisions only if they can clearly state precisely how an editor or constable has misused his or her authority.

Controls must be in place to prevent abuse of the process. The open nature of the Citizendium project, and the potentially politicizable nature of the appeals process, mean that we must have some controls on appeals. Contributors should be aware that, while appeals may be rejected with no ill consequences, appeals with no merit whatsoever may be dismissed. The accumulation of dismissed appeals will be regarded by the Constabulary as evidence of participation in bad faith, and may contribute to a contributor's ejection from the project.

[To do: establish the process through which workgroups make decisions; establish Editorial Appeals Committee]

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