Wikipedia:Risoluzzioni di li sciarri

Sta pàggina è òrfana, zzuè nun àvi lijami a tràsiri. Pi favuri, agghiunci na lijami a sta pàggina e scancella st'abbisu. Pâ lista cumpleta dî pàggini òrfani, vidi a pàggina dâ catigurìa.

Pi lu Pruggettu Wiki nta lingua angrisi supra a risoluzzioni di li sciarri, pi piaciri viriti "Risoluzzioni di li sciarri" o "Dispute Resolution".

Sta pulitica di cumpurtamentu discrivi chie ca unu avissi a fari quannu na discussioni cu n'autru editori accumenza a cauriàrisi.
Viriti macari a linia guida Wikiquette

Fucalizzatavi supra lu cuntinutu

Fucalizzativi supra lu cuntinutu, e non supra l'autru edituri.
Wikipedia fu criatu e custruiutu supra lu principiu di arrapprisintari unicamenti Punti di Vista Niutrali possibbirmenti senza priggiudizzia (NPOV) ca nta lingua angrisi eni l'acronimu ppi "Neutral Point of View".
Quannu truvati nu passaggiu nta n'articulu ca parissi cu nu prigiudizziu o eni inaccuratu, migliuratilu, si putiti. Si chissu nun eni pussibbili, e nun siti cumpritamenti d'accordu cu lu puntu di vista ispressu nta l'articulu, ) pinzati dui voti prima di scancillarlu simpricimenti.
Inveci, circati di bilanciarlu cu a vostra parti di la storia.
Pi piaciri assicurativi ca va firati di truvari surgenti affidabbili.
Testu sinza rifirenza putissi essiri signalatu o cancillatu. (Viri macari Virificabbilità).

Spiegati sempri li vostri canciamenti, spiciarmenti quannu vuliti ca autri pirsuni su d'accurdu cu viautri.
Si biautri siti capaci di dicirilu nta na riga fatilu (); pi spiegazzioni chiu longhi, utilizzati a paggina di discussioni e aggiungiti "viri discussioni" a lu testu su ccui stapieutu editannu.

Scriviti sicunnu li linii guida di l'articulu pirfettu "Wikipedia:L'articulu pirfettu" e sicuennu a pulitica di NPOV chissu vi po aiutari a scriviri nta manera "difinziva", limitannu li priggiudizzia nta a vostra scrittura.

Stay cool

Template:Policy shortcut Most situations are not urgent. Please give both you and the other party some time. Often it helps to just take a deep breath and sleep over it. Don't worry! You always can 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.

Discussing with the other party

Try to stay in the top three sections of this hierarchy.

Template:See Template:Policy shortcutDiscuss the issue on a talk page. Never carry on a dispute on the article page itself. Either contact the other party on that user's talk page, or use the talk page associated with the article in question. (You may even post the proposed content on the talk page.)

When discussing an issue, remember to stay cool. If you encounter rude or inappropriate behavior, resist the temptation to respond unkindly, and do not make personal attacks. Take the other person's perspective into account and try to reach a compromise. Assume that the other person is acting in good faith unless you have clear evidence to the contrary.

Both at this stage and throughout the dispute resolution process, talking to other parties is not simply a formality to be satisfied before moving on to the next forum. Failure to pursue discussion in good faith shows that you are trying to escalate the dispute instead of resolving it. This 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 successful, shows that you are interested in finding a solution that fits within Wikipedia policies.

Truce

Consider negotiating a truce – see Wikipedia:Truce. This is also important if you intend to solicit outside opinions because it allows others to consider the issue fairly without the confusion of ongoing edits.

Turn to others for help

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.

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.

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 about a policy

Ask at a policy talk page relevant to the issue.

Ask for help at a relevant noticeboard

If your dispute is related to one of the following topics, you may wish to post about it in one of these locations, to get the opinions of other editors familiar with similar disputes:

• Reliable Sources noticeboard – for discussion of whether or not a source is reliable
• No Original Research noticeboard – to ask about material that might be original research or original synthesis.
• Conflict of Interest noticeboard – to raise alerts about possible COI
• Suspected sockpuppets noticeboard – to ask for help in tracking down sockpuppets
• Biographies of Living Persons noticeboard – to raise alerts about problems with a living person's biography
• Fringe theories noticeboard – to report theories that may be being given undue weight
• Fiction noticeboard – for issues related to topics about works of fiction
• Ethnic and cultural conflicts noticeboard – for issues related to national, religious, ethnic, or other cultural conflicts
• Neutrality noticeboard – for issues about whether an article is meeting WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE.

For incivility

Turn to Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts for problems with uncivil editors. First, however, consider ignoring it – you can often get much more accomplished by rising above uncivil comments, and staying focussed on the task at hand.

Request a comment

Turn to Wikipedia:Requests for comment, the main avenue for disputes about user conduct. Note that Request for Comment is normally a necessary step before Arbitration can be sought, and is normally for disputes about User Conduct, although you can also request comments on articles, templates or categories.

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.

Formal mediation

Request mediation of the dispute. 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. Again, note that Mediation is normally for disputes about Article Content.

Conduct a survey

If consensus is difficult to gauge from discussion alone, consider conducting a survey of opinion to clarify the issues in the discussion. Note that a survey cannot generate consensus, but is helpful for understanding it. Similarly, if you believe that users are ignoring a consensus, a survey cannot force those users to accept your proposed consensus – although a survey might assist users in understanding the balance of opinions and reasons for those opinions on a given dispute, it can also easily degenerate into an argument over whether a particular survey is fairly constructed or representative. See Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion for reasons why discussion is necessary and superior to voting.

If the situation is urgent

• To report urgent violations of Wikipedia's policies on Civility or Personal Attacks, please raise them at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts.
• To report improper usernames, see usernames for administrator attention.
• To report edit warring, see the administrators' 3RR noticeboard.
• To request permanent deletion of personal information, see requests for oversight.
• To report suspected sockpuppetry, see suspected sock puppets.
• If you are blocked, please 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").

If a user's conduct needs other urgent attention from an administrator, report it to the Administrators' Noticeboard. The Administrators' Noticeboard is not the place to raise disputes over content, or reports of abusive behaviour. Administrators are not referees, and have limited authority to deal with abusive editors.

Last resort: Arbitration

Template:See 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.