Dispute Resolution

Resolve disputes is a code of conduct policy. Open Foresight Hub's Code of Conduct outlines acceptable behavior by, and between, users on Open Foresight Hub. The code of conduct applies to everyone who interacts and contributes to online and offline Open Foresight Hub projects and spaces. We believe in creating a space in which as many people as possible can actively and safely engage in the Open Foresight Hub.

This article outlines how to resolve content disputes on Open Foresight Hub. Content disputes are good-faith disagreements about page edits. If you believe harassment or vandalism is taking place, contact an administrator.

Disputes, if possible, can be prevented by planning ahead and evaluating the situation. If you have an issue with an article for any reason – the way it is written, factual accuracy, or anything else - you should let the author(s) know via a comment in either the article's or that user's editor's notes.

This does not mean that only a “singular” author of an article can edit that article. Every user has the right to engage, create and edit. If large additions or minor edits need to be made, they can be made by anybody, and we do not want to discourage people from contributing to the Open Foresight Hub in any way, shape, or form. The only time that discretion would be urged is in removing a lot of a currently existing article without adding to it.

Before you contact one of the administrators, you should try to sort out arguments through the related editor’s notes. If this is not attempted, it is most likely that no administrator will hear your case. You can also try to bring in more users to sort out the dispute, and discuss the merits of each side, attempting to arrive at a compromise. If no compromise is reached, then it may become necessary to submit a request for dispute resolution.

• Remain civil and calm and keep your comments to the point
• Do not edit war- An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions. Instead of reverting to your preferred version, discuss changes in the editor notes and try to reach a compromise.
• Keep by the 3RR Rule - do not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24- hour period. See the Code of Conduct Policy for more information on the 3RR Rule.
• Give discussion a fair chance and don't jump to using the dispute resolution noticeboard too quickly.
• If discussions in the editors notes aren't going anywhere after thorough, extensive discussion, or if you believe an “edit war” is taking place, then turn to the dispute resolution noticeboard or ask for assistance from your account administrators
• Don't wait too long after discussion has ceased to ask for dispute resolution as a thorough but also timely response is necessary

If you find yourself in a situation where you and another user or users are disagreeing on edits and efforts to discuss and understand the objections of others has resulted in a stalemate, then users may seek outside help to resolve the dispute. Other editors may weigh in on a dispute and help resolve the issue without getting an administrator involved.

Most situations are not actually urgent; there are no deadlines on Open Foresight Hub, and 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.

Take a long-term view of the situation. You will 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 the article is not accepted, it might be in the future.

Do not contact the administrators if someone makes a relatively minor edit to or adds to your page and you do not like it. Adding to pages is not something that is punished in almost any circumstance. Do not contact the administrators if you have not tried to solve the problem without them. Most importantly, do not contact the administrators as a means of “getting back at” or retaliating against another user for something they have done to you.

There is a general expectation that users and administrators work together through good-faith disagreements regarding content.

To submit a request for dispute resolution, add to Open Foresight Hub’s list of requests for dispute resolution. Alternatively, administrators may be contacted via their respective user editor notes. If you need your dispute to be handled privately, you may email admin@openforesighthub.org with ‘dispute resolution’ in the subject line. Administrators may refuse to review a case for any reason.

If an ongoing dispute can not be resolved on an editor's notes, any user can go to the Dispute resolution noticeboard and file a dispute. The dispute resolution noticeboard is the best way to get administrators to weigh in on a dispute. Use the following template on the dispute resolution noticeboard to file a dispute:

• Articles disputed:
• Dispute summary:
• Notes: (include whether a recommendation was previously issued)

• Status (bold one): submitted | rejected | under review | recommendation issued | resolved
• Administrator comments:

Administrators are expected to be impartial and should recuse themselves from administrative decisions if there could be an appearance of a conflict of interest. This could occur, for instance, if a user reverts an administrator's edits. The administrator should not “pull rank” and revert the edit because they have an interest in their wording or version. In this case, a neutral administrator should be asked to adjudicate the dispute and determine what, if any, warnings or blocks should be issued. An administrator is authorized to return an article to a previous state if the user's edit (or revert) brings an article out of compliance with Open Foresight Hub policies or standards.

Administrators are expected to include a comment that provides an explanation for the offending behavior.

Administrators should be courteous to individuals who are banned or blocked and not mock or belittle them in the comments.

Administrators have a right to interpret this policy in the event of unusual cases with the goal of maintaining a safe, welcoming, and inclusive community in line with Open Foresight Hub's values.

When a request to moderate has been approved, an administrator will review the case and issue a recommendation. Both sides must submit a short (one to three paragraphs) written argument to the administrator, who will then review both the written arguments and issue a non-binding recommendation, after which the dispute is dismissed.

There are no direct consequences or outcomes for ignoring an administrator moderation recommendation; however, if the conflict persists and a second request for dispute resolution is submitted, it will be handled instead by an arbitration panel.

If a request for dispute resolution is accepted, and the dispute has been previously handled by an administrator, an arbitration panel composed of three administrators will be formed to issue a ruling. Once again, written arguments of the same style as those in the moderation panel must be submitted. The three administrators on the panel will discuss the conflict and issue a final and absolute resolution, calling on both sides to take courses of action, after which the dispute is dismissed and the panel dissolved.

Arbitration panel judgements are final. Fair time will be given for users to act on the resolution as required; 72 hours from the issuing of the arbitration panel resolution will be given for the users to comply.

Ignoring an arbitration panel resolution could result in a temporary ban.

Users and administrators can provide warnings to users if deemed necessary. Please review our Warning Policy for specifics.

Failing to comply with an arbitration panel’s decision may mean that an administrator takes over and remedies the failing parties' actions. This may result in a temporary ban of an appropriate scope for a given user or users, depending on the severity of non-compliance. Please review our Banning Policy page for specifics.

Repeated failure to comply with arbitration panel resolutions may lead to a ban or block for disrupting the peace. People who consistently push only their point of view, ignorant of the wishes and viewpoints of others, will risk being banned from Open Foresight Hub for a time, temporarily losing contribution and editing privileges. Please review our Banning Policy for specifics.

Users who ask others to make edits either through the Open Foresight Hub forums or other methods, including social media and platforms not controlled by the Open Foresight Hub, risk being banned for sockpuppetry and/or edit requests.

Further such actions after having been banned and restored at least once could result in being blocked from Open Foresight Hub, permanently losing contribution and editing privileges. Please review our Blocking Policy page for specifics.

Categories: policy | code of conduct