Editing Incubator escapee wiki:Dispute resolution (section)

==Resolving content disputes==
{{anchor|Avoiding conflict}}
{{redirect|Wikipedia:Discussion||Wikipedia:Talk|and|Category:Wikipedia discussion}}
{{nutshell|Resolve disputes as soon as they arise. When two editors disagree over what to do with an article, they must talk things through politely and rationally.|title=This section|shortcut=WP:RCD}}

There are many methods on Wikipedia for resolving disputes. Most methods are not formal processes and do not involve third-party intervention. Respond to all disputes or grievances, in the first instance, by approaching the editor or editors concerned and explaining which of their edits you object to and why you object. Use the article talk page or their user talk page to do so; be civil, polite, and [[Wikipedia:Assume good faith|always assume good faith]].

===Follow the normal protocol===
When you find a passage in an article that is biased, inaccurate, or unsourced the best practice is to [[WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM|improve it if you can]] rather than deleting salvageable text. For example, if an article appears biased, add balancing material or make the wording more neutral. Include [[Wikipedia:Citing sources|citations]] for any material you add. If you do not know how to fix a problem, ask for help on the talk page.

To help other editors understand the reasoning behind your edits, explain your changes in the [[Help:Edit summary|edit summary]]. If an edit is too complex to explain in an edit summary, or the change is contentious, add a section to the talk page that explains your rationale. Be prepared to justify your changes to other editors on the talk page. If you are reverted, continue to explain yourself; do not start an [[WP:EW|edit war]].

===<span id="discuss"></span><span id="Discuss"></span>Discuss with the other party===
{{shortcut|WP:NEGOTIATE}}
[[File:Disputeresolution.svg|thumb|right|260px|[[Paul Graham (programmer)#Graham's hierarchy of disagreement|Graham's hierarchy of disagreement]]: Aim at the top during disputes.]]
{{further|Wikipedia:Negotiation}}

Talking to other parties is not a mere formality, but an integral part of writing the encyclopedia. Discussing heatedly or poorly&nbsp;– or not at all&nbsp;– will make other editors less sympathetic to your position, and prevent you from effectively using the later stages of dispute resolution. Sustained discussion between the parties, even if not immediately successful, demonstrates your good faith and shows you are trying to reach a [[WP:CONSENSUS|consensus]]. Try negotiating a [[WP:Truce|truce]] or proposing a [[WP:Negotiation|compromise]] through negotiation.

Do not continue edit warring; once sustained discussion begins, productively participating in it is a priority. Uninvolved editors who are invited to join a dispute will likely be confused and alarmed if there are large numbers of reverts or edits made while discussion is ongoing.

[[WP:Talk page guidelines|Talk page discussion]] is a prerequisite to almost all of Wikipedia's venues of higher dispute resolution. If you wish at any time to request a [[WP:3O|third opinion (3O)]] or [[WP:RfC|request for comment]], use the [[WP:DRN|Dispute Resolution Noticeboard (DRN)]], or open a [[WP:RfArb|request for arbitration]], you will be expected to show there has been talk page discussion of the dispute. Actual discussion is needed; discussion conducted entirely through [[Help:Edit summary|edit summaries]] is inadequate.

===Focus on content===
{{policy shortcut|WP:FOC}}
{{further|Wikipedia:Editing policy|Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines}}

Focus on article content during discussions, not on editor conduct; comment on content, not the contributor. Wikipedia is written through collaboration, and [[WP:Assume good faith|assuming that the efforts of others are in good faith]] is therefore vital. Bringing up conduct during discussions about content creates a distraction to the discussion and may inflame the situation.

Focusing on content, and not bringing up conduct, can be difficult if it seems other editors are being uncivil or stubborn. [[WP:Staying cool when the editing gets hot|Stay cool]]! It is never to your benefit to respond in kind. When it becomes too difficult or exhausting to maintain a civil discussion based on content, you should seriously consider going to an appropriate dispute resolution venue [[#Requesting other editors' help for content disputes|detailed below]]; but at no juncture should you lose your temper. Wikipedia is not like a lot of the Internet: we expect editors to be polite and reasonable at all times.

===Disengage===
{{Policy shortcut|WP:DISENGAGE}}

Most situations are not actually urgent; [[Wikipedia:There is no deadline|there are no deadlines]] on Wikipedia, and [[WP:IMPERFECT|perfection is not required]]. At all stages during discussion, consider whether you should take a break from the dispute. Taking a deep breath and sleeping on it often helps. You can always return to the discussion later, but at least you will return without an inflamed temper. You may also want to consider [[Wikipedia:Catch Once and Leave|leaving the discussion]] altogether as well. 

Take a long-term view of the situation. You'll probably be able to return and carry on editing an article when the previous problems no longer exist and the editor you were in dispute with might have moved on. The disputed article will continue to evolve, other editors may become interested, and they might have different perspectives if the issue comes up again. Even if your position on an article isn't accepted ''now'', it might very well be accepted ''in the future''.

Disengaging is particularly helpful when in dispute with [[Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers|new users]], as it gives them a chance to familiarise themselves with Wikipedia's policies and culture. There are currently [[WP:Size of Wikipedia|{{NUMBEROFARTICLES}} articles]] on Wikipedia; consider focusing your time and attention toward a different article or topic, where you can more easily make constructive edits.