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 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 talk page, aimed at compromise.

Dialogue professionally, and bear in mind that your dialogue is not necessarily determinative. Please make sure that you 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.

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, 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.

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 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 on their own recognizance. Constables may also be consulted about what Citizendium articles are not as well as about our Policy on Self-Promotion.

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

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.

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 in order to determine what the author's arguments are, but his or her decision on the matter 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. [The following may be stricken: The author may appeal the matter to the appropriate 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.

The Editorial Appeals Committee. (This is is a proposal; it has not been approved by the Editorial Council. --LMS) [The following may be stricken: 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 Judicial Board, and all of its decisions are placed before the Board, not for approval, but for the broadest sort of oversight. The Board may, if it votes to do so, take up an issue voted on by the Editorial Appeals Committee. See CZ:Editorial Appeals Committee.

Procedural issues

How appeals work. The actual requirements for an appeal to a given body are established by each appeals body. These include:

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

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.

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.

What to do if there is a difference in interpretation of existing policy

What to do if there is disagreement about what workgroup an article is assigned to

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 Policy Outline. You may also write the editor-in-chief for guidance.

(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.

(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.

Disagreements handled by

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