I have the perception that conflicts about wiki edition in a somewhat general sense are usual here, or at the very least it's an ongoing issue. Even though if I were completely wrong and all wiki editors are happy and chummy to each other, dispute resolution guidelines would still be an issue because they are not present in the wiki as far as my search skill have allowed to show me. If they are, and I am then just fooling around, please close and delete this topic and have my apologies.
So if you are still here it means those guidelines are not present in the wiki, I then propound to establish them. We can help us upon what has already been done. Indeed, Wikipedia has put together official and non-official conventions for resolving these issues (in italic are the remarks I have added):
- General Dispute resolution guidelines which encompass pretty much all manners of resolving conflicts.
- Negotiation: the cooperative process whereby participants try to find a solution that meets the legitimate interests of both parties. Some techniques are:
- Consensus: Consensus does not mean unanimity (which is ideal but not always achievable), nor is it the result of a vote. Decision making and reaching consensus involve an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting policies and guidelines.
- Truce: While working on FreecadWiki, you may occasionally get into a dispute with another person. That person may seem like a troll or a hothead to you, but it's usually best to assume that you are dealing with a reasonable person who is simply confused on a particular issue or has a point of view different from your own. No matter what the problem is, flaming is not going to solve it. Try to reach a truce. Which according to Wikipedia, entails to:
- Take it slow
- Lead by example
- Give the benefit of the doubt
- Seek other opinions
- Compromise process: To compromise is to make a deal between different parties where each party gives up part of their demand. In arguments, compromise is a concept of finding agreement through communication, through a mutual acceptance of terms—often involving variations from an original goal or desires. This is the least desirable outcome, so try to avoid it when possible.
- Mediation: During mediation, a content dispute between two or more editors is subjected to the involvement of an uninvolved third party (who is the mediator). The role of the mediator is to guide discussion towards the formation of agreement over the disputed elements of content. You can ask any neutral editor to act as a mediator for you. You can also request mediation on FreecadWiki by using the :
- Dispute Resolution Noticeboard: Informal place to resolve small content disputes as part of dispute resolution. It may also be used as a tool to direct certain discussions to more appropriate forums, such as requests for comment, or other noticeboards.
- Third opinion: Third opinion (3O) is a means to request an outside opinion in a content or sourcing disagreement between two editors. When two editors do not agree, either editor may list a discussion here to seek a third opinion. The third opinion process requires observance of good faith and civility from both editors during the discussion in order to be successful.
- Requests for comment (RfC): Is a process for requesting outside input concerning disputes, policies, guidelines or article content. RfCs are a way to attract more attention to a discussion about making changes to pages or procedures, including articles, essays, guidelines, policies, and many other kinds of pages. It uses a system of centralized noticeboards and random, bot-delivered invitations to advertise discussions to uninvolved editors. The normal talk page guidelines apply to these discussions.
This probably needs the implementation of some bot system to deliver the invitations, it may be a mediawiki extension. The random set of editors is likely to be taken from the active wiki users set for obvious reasons.
- Last resort Arbitration: 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 other forms of dispute resolution 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.
This process requires an established:- Arbitration Committee
- Probably composed by some of The Big Fish Founders, Core Developers, Moderators and one or two mere mortals. This committee could also rule over the forum?
- To act as a final binding decision-maker primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve;
- (2.) To hear appeals from blocked, banned, or otherwise restricted users;
- (3.) To resolve matters unsuitable for public discussion for privacy, legal, or similar reasons;
- Arbitration Committee
- Negotiation: the cooperative process whereby participants try to find a solution that meets the legitimate interests of both parties. Some techniques are:
So those are my two cents... and maybe some more!