|
== Stap 1: Praat met die betrokke persone==
Die eerste stap in die beslegting van enige geskil is om die oorsaak van die konflik op die betrokke gebruikersbesprekingsblad te bespreek. Persoonlike konfliksituasies word slegs op gebruikersbesprekingsbladsye bespreek en nie op artikels se besprekingsbladsye nie. Wanneer u 'n onderwerp bespreek, bly rustig en moenie persoonlike aantygings maak nie. Neem rekening met die ander persoon se perspektief en standpunt in ag en probeer om 'n middelweg te vind. U kan aanneem dat die betrokke partye in goedertrou optree, tensy u duidelike bewyse van die teendeel het. <!---
Op hierdie stadium van die beslegting, en ook dwarsdeur die hele proses, is die bespreking met ander partye nie slegs 'n formaliteit wat u moet afhandel voor u na die volgende stap gaan nie. As u nie probeer om 'n gesprek in goedertrou voort te sit nie, sal dit veroorsaak dat u die konflik vermeerder, in plaas van om dit op te los. Dit sal ook maak dat ander persone minder simpatiek teenoor u standpunt is en mag selfs keer dat die latere stappe van geskilbeslegtig effektief voltooi word. As u egter volhou om met bespreking en ernstige onderhandeling tussen die betrokke persone, al is u nie dadelik suksesvol nie, sal ander persone kan sien dat u daarin belangstel om 'n oplossing te vind wat by die Wikipedia se riglyne pas en ook ander mense se standpunte in ag neem.
== Stap 2: Skep afstand tussen u en die probleem ==
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.
'n Eenvoudige oplossing vir enige argument is bloot om die argument te '''stop''': u kan dit doen deur die betrokke artikel/gesprek tydelik te verlaat, sodoende kry die betrokke partye kans om kalm te word en twee keer na te dink voor hul weer aan die gesprek deelneem. U kan ook 'n onpartydige, neutrale bydraer vra om sy mening te lewer: dit is veral behulpsaam wanneer u verskil van 'n nuweling, wat miskien nie vertroud is met die beleid en kultuur van die Afrikaanse Wikipedia nie. In die tussentyd kan u op ander artikels konsentreer waar u wel 'n konstruktiewe bydrae kan lewer. U kan egter gerus enige vrae wat op u besprekingsblad gestel word antwoord, maar wanneer dit om die inhoud van 'n spesifieke artikel gaan, kan u voorstel dat die bespreking op die betrokke artikel se besprekingsblad geplaas word. Sodoende is alle inligting wat relevant tot die artikel is altyd op een plek.
{{see|Wikipedia:Negotiation}}
Bedink en beskou dinge in die lange termyn. Dit is moontlik dat u naderhand na die artikel sal kan terugkeer met 'n vars perspektief aangaande die oorspronklike geskil. Dit is moontlik dat die probleme hulself (of met hulp) in die tussentyd opgelos het en die gebruiker van wie u verskil het na 'n ander artikel aanbeweeg het. Die artikel sal bly ontwikkel en u mag wel ander bydraers teëkom wat ook hul eie opinies het, indien die kwessie weer tevoorskyn kom.
== Second step: Disengage for a while ==
A simple solution to a dispute is to '''stop''' having it — by leaving the article and/or bringing in an outside editor. This is particularly helpful when disputing with [[Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers|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. Avoid going back to the page of dispute. Respond to questions about it on your user talk page and direct the questioner to take their issues to the article talk page to keep all relevant discussion in one place.
== Verder geskilbeslegting ==
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.
As die bogenoemde stappe nie suksesvol is nie kan u probeer om die geskil te besleg deur een van die volgende metodes te gebruik. Welke metodes u kies (en in watter volgorde) sal afhang van die aard van die geskil en die voorkeure van die betrokke persone.
=== Bespreek met derde partye===
== Further dispute resolution ==
If talking to the other parties involved and taking a break fails, you should try one of the following methods to resolve the dispute. Which ones you choose and in what order will depend on the nature of the dispute, and the preferences of people involved.
Wikipedia werk deur die bereiking van konsensus. Om konsensus te verkry oor 'n betwiste onderwerp, mag dit nodig wees om meer persone te betrek.
=== Discuss with third parties ===
*Versoek kommentaar en opinies van ander bydraers. Die versoek kan in die Geselshoekie gelewer word, maar kommentaar moet wel op die betrokke besprekingsbladsye gelewer word.
Wikipedia works by building [[consensus]]. To develop a consensus on a disputed topic, you may need to expose the issue to a larger audience. Options for doing this include:
As u nog nie tot 'n wapenstilstand gekom het teen hierdie tyd nie, moet u dit dadelik in werking stel. Voortdurende teenstrydige wysigings sal die geskil net erger maak. Dit is ook iets om in gedagte te hou wanneer u buitestaanders om hulp vra, aangesien 'n artikel waarvan die inhoud konstant verander hulle slegs sal verwar en keer dat hulle die saak regverdig kan oorweeg. Indien 'n redigeringsoorlog uitbreek en die betrokke partye weier om te stop, is dit raadsaam om 'n [[Spesiaal:Listusers/sysop|administrateur]] te kontak en te vra dat die bladsy tydelik beskerm word teen enige wysigings.
*[[Wikipedia:Requests for comment]], the main avenue for general disputes
*[[Wikipedia:Third opinion]], for disputes involving only two editors
*Asking at subject-specific [[Wikipedia:WikiProject]]s or [[Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines|policy pages]] relevant to the issue.
*[[Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts]], for problems with [[WP:CIVIL|uncivil]] editors
===Informele bemiddeling===
If you have not agreed to a [[Wikipedia:Truce|truce]] before this point, you should do so now. Continuing to escalate the conflict with competing edits is likely to aggravate the dispute. 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. If an edit war persists and parties refuse to stop, you may [[Wikipedia:Requests for page protection|request that the page be protected]] to allow the process to move forward.
Somtyds word dit 'n bietjie so 'n bietjie netelig en kan dit nuttig wees om 'n paar koel koppe te vra om in te kom loer en hand te gee. Sommige bydraers wat 'n derde opinie gee of antwoord op versoeke vir kommentaar mag gewillig wees om as bemiddelaar op te tree, indien so versoek.
:''See also [[Wikipedia:NPOV dispute]], [[Wikipedia:Accuracy dispute]], and [[Wikipedia:Protection policy]].''
===InformalFormele mediation=bemiddeling==
Plaas 'n versoek om bemiddeling in die Geselshoekie. Bemiddeling is 'n vrywille proses waarin 'n ''neutrale, onbetrokke'' persoon die betrokke partye help om 'n oplossing te vind wat by almal aanklank sal vind. Wanneer u aansoek vir bemiddeling doen moet u egter kan bewys dat u reeds die genoemde stappe probeer het ter beslegting van die geskil en dat alle betrokke partye ingestem het dat 'n bemiddelaar die enigste uitweg is. Bemiddeling kan nie plaasvind wanneer enige van die betrokke partye nie instem om aan die bemiddelingsproses deel te neem nie.
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 [[Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal|Mediation Cabal]] can also assist in settling disputes without turning to formal mediation.
=== 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.
[[Category:Wikipedia]]
=== Formal mediation ===
[[Wikipedia:Requests for 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.
{{seealso|Wikipedia:Mediation Committee|Wikipedia:Requests for mediation|Wikipedia:Community enforceable mediation}}
== Last resort: Arbitration==
If you have taken all other reasonable steps to resolve the dispute, and the dispute is not over the content of the article, [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration|request Arbitration]]. Be prepared to show that you tried to resolve the dispute by other means. [[Arbitration]] differs from Mediation in that the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee|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 [[Wikipedia:Arbitration policy|Arbitration policy]].
{{see|Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee|Wikipedia:Arbitration policy|Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration}}
==Editor assistance==
[[Wikipedia: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.
==See also ==
* [[Wikipedia:Edit war]]
* [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Situations and handling]]
* [[Dispute resolution]]
* [[Wikipedia:No angry mastodons]]
* [[Wikipedia:Etiquette]]
[[Category:Wikipedia dispute resolution|{{PAGENAME}}]]--->
[[br:Wikipedia:Argerzhadur evit diskoulmañ tabutoù]]
| 