විකිපීඩියා:ආරෝවන් සමනය - විකිපීඩියා

විකිපීඩියා:ආරෝවන් සමනය - විකිපීඩියා
Jump to content
විකිපීඩියා වෙතින්
Wikipedia policy
සැකිල්ල:SHORTDESC:Wikipedia policy
"WP:DR" මෙතැනට යළියොමුවෙයි. වෙනත් භාවිතා සඳහා,
WP:DR (බහුරුත්හරණය)
බලන්න.
මෙම පිටුව ඉංග්‍රීසි ව්‍යාපෘතියෙන් මෙහි ගෙනවිත් ඇත. අන්තර්ගතය අපගේ ව්‍යාපෘතිය සමඟ 100% නොගැලපෙනමුත් අපගේ අවශ්‍යතාවයන් වලට අනුකූලව ගොඩනගා ගැනීම සඳහා මූලික පියවර ලෙස භාවිතා කළ හැකිය.
මෙම පිටුව ඉංග්‍රීසි විකිපීඩියාවේ
නිල ප්‍රතිපත්තිවල
සිංහල පරිවර්ථනයක් ලෙස ආරම්භ කරණලදී.
ඉංග්‍රීසි විකිපීඩියාවේ පරිශීලකයන් අතර මේ පිලිබඳ පුළුල් පිලිගැනීමක් ඇති අතර එහි සියළු පරිශීලකයන් පිලිපැදියයුතු සම්මතය ලෙස සැලකේ. මෙම පිටුව සංස්කරණය කරන විට, කරැණාකාර ඔබගේ සංශෝධනය
පොදු එකඟත්වය
මත පැවරෙනවාදැයි සහතික කරන්න. දෙගිඩියාවෙන් සිටින විට, ප්‍රථමයෙන්
සාකච්ජා පිටුවෙහි
සාකච්ජා කර සිටින්න.
කෙටි මං
WP:DR
WP:DISPUTE
Dispute resolution
Requests
Tips
Assume good faith
Use etiquette
Be civil
Be open to compromise
Discuss on talk pages
Failure to discuss
Help desk
Request
Content disputes
Third opinion
Request
Mediation
Noticeboards
Request comments
Request
Resolution noticeboard
Request
Conduct disputes
Administrator assistance
Request
Arbitration
Request
කල්ක්‍රියා ප්‍රතිපත්ති
සභ්‍යබව
නිර්මල ඇරඹුම
එකඟතාව
ආරෝවන් සමන
සංස්කරණ ප්‍රතිවිරෝධතා
සංස්කරණ ප්‍රතිපත්තිය
හිරිහැරකිරීම්
පුද්ගලයින්ට පහරදීම් නොකරන්න
ලිපි වල හිමිකාරිත්වය
රූකඩ නැටවීම
පරිශීලක නාම ප්‍රතිපත්තිය
විනාශකිරීම්
Disagreements on Wikipedia are normal; editors will frequently disagree with each other, particularly on content decisions. Editors are expected to engage in good faith to resolve their disputes, and must not
personalise disputes
. Many disputes can be resolved without external input, through
gradual editing
, discussion, and attempts to understand the legitimate objections of others.
If discussion stalemates, editors may seek outside input to help resolve the dispute. Disputes over content have multiple venues for outside help, and related discussions can also be advertised on the
talk pages
of relevant
WikiProjects
to receive participation from interested uninvolved editors. Processes for resolving content disputes with outside help include asking for a
third opinion
, seeking help from a
mediator
, making a request at an appropriate
noticeboard
, or opening a
request for comment
. Issues of conduct may be addressed at the
incidents noticeboard
, and may be taken to the
arbitration committee
for more complex disputes.
For issues that demand immediate attention, please see
urgent situations
Resolving content disputes
සංස්කරණය
"Wikipedia:Discussion" මෙතැනට යළියොමුවෙයි. වෙනත් භාවිතා සඳහා,
Wikipedia:Talk
බලන්න.
This section අඩංගු කරුණු සැකෙවින්:
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.
කෙටි මග
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
always assume good faith
Follow the normal protocol
සංස්කරණය
When you find a passage in an article that is biased, inaccurate, or unsourced the best practice is to
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
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, always explain your changes in the
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
edit war
Discuss with the other party
සංස්කරණය
කෙටි මග
WP:NEGOTIATE
Graham's hierarchy of disagreement
: Aim at the top during disputes.
වැඩිදුර තොරතුරු:
Wikipedia:Negotiation
Talking to other parties is not a mere formality, but an integral part of writing the encyclopedia. Discussing heatedly or poorly – or not at all – will make other editors less sympathetic to your position, and prevent you from effectively using later stages in dispute resolution. Sustained discussion between the parties, even if not immediately successful, demonstrates your good faith and shows you are trying to reach a
consensus
. Try negotiating a
truce
or proposing a
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.
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
third opinion (3O)
or
request for comment
, use the
Dispute Resolution Noticeboard (DRN)
, or open a
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
edit summaries
is inadequate.
Focus on content
සංස්කරණය
කෙටි මග
WP:FOC
වැඩිදුර තොරතුරු:
Wikipedia:Editing policy
සහ
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
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.
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
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
සංස්කරණය
කෙටි මග
WP:DISENGAGE
Most situations are not actually urgent;
there are no deadlines
on Wikipedia, 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.
Disengaging is particularly helpful when in dispute with
new users
, as it gives them a chance to familiarise themselves with Wikipedia's policies and culture. There are currently
25,112 articles
on Wikipedia. Consider focusing your contributions on another article, where you can more easily make constructive edits.
Requesting other editors' help for content disputes
සංස්කරණය
කෙටි මං
WP:CONTENTDISPUTE
WP:SEEKHELP
වැඩිදුර තොරතුරු:
Wikipedia:Dispute resolution requests
If you cannot resolve the dispute through discussion with the other editor, you may request participation from interested editors uninvolved in the discussion, to build
consensus
for your changes. Several venues are available, listed below, to find editors who may be able to assist.
Participation in dispute resolution is voluntary and no one is required to participate. However, discussion can still proceed and consensus may be reached without the non-participating editor's input. Administrators and the community may take into consideration the degree and nature of an editor's participation in dispute resolution when deciding if an editor's activities are productive.
Article talk page
සංස්කරණය
Most content dispute discussions should start at the disputed article's talk page. This is a good place to talk to the other editor in the dispute, and also to get opinions from additional editors. Usually an article will be on other editors'
watchlists
, and other editors may see your conversation and join the discussion.
Related talk pages or WikiProjects
සංස්කරණය
If your dispute is related to a certain content area, you can ask your question or publicize a related discussion on the talk page of relevant
WikiProjects
or other pages. For example, a dispute at the article
Battle of Stalingrad
could be mentioned at
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history
. To keep discussion centralized at the original talk page, you may just want to leave a link to the original talk page and a brief invitation to join the discussion, rather than restarting the discussion on the new talk page.
Third opinion
සංස්කරණය
Third opinion
is an excellent venue for small disputes involving
only two
editors.
Noticeboards
සංස්කරණය
If your dispute is related to the application of a specific policy or guideline, you may wish to post in one of these noticeboards (below) to get input from uninvolved editors familiar with that topic.
Biographies of living persons noticeboard
– Generally for cases where editors are repeatedly adding defamatory or libelous material over an extended period, in violation of the
biographies of living persons policy
Conflict of interest noticeboard
– to raise questions and alerts about possible
conflicts of interest editing
Neutral point of view noticeboard
– to raise questions and alerts about the neutrality of an article
Fringe theories noticeboard
– for questions related to articles on
fringe theories
No original research noticeboard
– to raise questions and alerts about material that might be
original research
or
source synthesis
Reliable sources noticeboard
– for discussion of whether or not a source is
reliable
External links noticeboard
– to raise questions and alerts about
external links
Requested move
සංස්කරණය
Requested moves
(RM) is a process to request community-wide input on the retitling of the article. RMs should be used when there is a dispute about what the
title of an article
should be, or when the user anticipates that a move would be contentious; while the RM is ongoing, the article should remain at its stable title. To solicit responses from a large number of editors, RMs can further be publicized via
noticeboards
or relevant
WikiProject
talk pages. RM discussions take place on a relevant article's talk page.
Requests for comment
සංස්කරණය
කෙටි මග
WP:DR#RfCs
Request for comment
(RfC) is a process to request community-wide input on article content. RfCs can be used when there is a content-related dispute, or simply to get input from other editors before making a change. To solicit responses from a large number of editors, RfCs can be publicized via
noticeboards
or relevant
WikiProject
talk pages. An RfC bot will also automatically notify the
feedback request service
pool of editors. RfC discussions related to article content take place on article talk pages.
Dispute resolution noticeboard
සංස්කරණය
The
Dispute resolution noticeboard
(DRN) is the place where editors involved in a content dispute can have a discussion facilitated by uninvolved volunteers, in an attempt to find compromise and resolution to disputes. The volunteers are experienced Wikipedia editors with knowledge in dispute resolution. Disputes are sometimes referred to a more appropriate venue (such as Requests for Comment).
Resolving user conduct disputes
සංස්කරණය
කෙටි මං
WP:RUCD
WP:CONDUCTDISPUTE
මේවාත් බලන්න:
Wikipedia:Tools/User interaction investigations
The difference between a conduct and a content dispute is that, in a conduct dispute, the actions of a user (such as how an editor edits or the comments the editor makes about other users) is the overriding issue. If there would be no substantive dispute if the editor was not behaving in a disruptive or unprofessional way, then it is a conduct dispute; if the primary issue is that two editors cannot agree on what the content of an article should be, then it is a content dispute.
User talk page
සංස්කරණය
If the issue is a conduct dispute (i.e., editor behavior) the first step is to talk with the other editor at their
user talk page
in a
polite, simple, and direct
way. Try to avoid discussing conduct issues on article talk pages. There are
several templates
you may use to warn editors of conduct issues,
or you may choose to use your own words to open a discussion on the editor's talk page. In all cases, and even in the face of serious misconduct, please try to act in a professional and polite manner.
Turn the other cheek
Noticeboards
සංස්කරණය
If discussion with the editor fails to resolve the issue, you may ask an
administrator
to evaluate the conduct of the user. You can ask for an administrator's attention at a noticeboard such as the
administrators' noticeboard for incidents
(ANI). Conduct complaints that fall into certain sub-categories of misconduct have their own administrators' noticeboard; for example, complaints about edit warring should be made at the
edit warring noticeboard
(AN3), and requests for enforcing an Arbitration Committee decision at the
arbitration enforcement noticeboard
(AE). Administrators and the community will look to see if you have tried to resolve the conflict before escalating, and they will look at your behavior as well as the behavior of the other editor or editors. Administrators have wide latitude to use their permissions to stop misconduct and damage to the encyclopedia; for example, an editor who is making personal attacks, and does not stop when you ask them, may be warned by an administrator and subsequently blocked.
Sockpuppet investigations
is for evaluating concerns that two users may be
sockpuppets
(editors who are operating two accounts pretending to be different people, or blocked editors returning under a different account).
Requests for comment on usernames
and
usernames for administrator attention (UAA)
are the main methods of bringing attention to usernames which may be inappropriate.
Sensitive issues and functionary actions
සංස්කරණය
මේවාත් බලන්න:
Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee
Wikipedia:CheckUser
Wikipedia:Oversight
Wikipedia:Harassment
, සහ
Wikipedia:Volunteer Response Team
A small number of user conduct grievances involve sensitive or non-public information. These include issues where an
arbitrator
checkuser
, or
oversighter
has stated a privacy issue exists in the case, and disputes where there is a concern of a sensitive or private nature. For example:
Non-public details: Grievances where the relevant information and evidence are not accessible to all participants or to the community as a whole. This can also happen due to copyright or privacy reasons,
BLP
, or when the material is on an unsuitable
external link
"Outing" concerns: When discussion may in effect mean "
outing
", for example if there is a concern that a user is editing with a secret conflict of interest and the evidence would tend to identify them.
Serious matters: The issue involves legal concerns, harassment, or allegations that are very serious or perhaps defamatory.
Advice on divisive and sensitive issues: The issue may potentially be very divisive and advice is needed on how best to handle it (
socking by an administrator
is one example).
Disputes or issues of this kind should usually be referred to the
functionaries mailing list
or
Arbitration Committee
. In some cases it may be possible to seek advice from an uninvolved trusted administrator by IRC, email or other private means. Where an action is marked as CheckUser, Oversight, VRT (formerly OTRS), or Arbitration Committee, that action should
not
be reverted without checking beforehand. The presumption is that they have a good reason, and those aware of the reason may need time to recheck, consult, and respond. Sometimes the relevant talk page or other wiki pages will have more details and these are always a good first place to check.
Such actions, if disputed, should initially be raised (by email if necessary) with the agent or functionary concerned. Where a dispute about CheckUser and Oversighter actions cannot be resolved in this manner, it should be referred to the
functionaries mailing list
or the
Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Audit
where appropriate. Disputes about ArbCom actions should be referred to the
Arbitration Committee
Last resort: arbitration
සංස්කරණය
ප්‍රධාන පිටුව:
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration
වැඩිදුර තොරතුරු:
Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee
Wikipedia:Arbitration policy
, සහ
Wikipedia:Arbitration guide
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 other forms of dispute resolution 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
For urgent situations
සංස්කරණය
Some situations can be sufficiently urgent or serious that dispute resolution steps are not equipped to resolve the issue. Such situations can be forwarded to the appropriate venue.
Venues for urgent assistance
To request or report:
Go to:
Deletion
of personal information from logs and page histories
Wikipedia:Requests for oversight
Unblocking (if you are blocked)
See the
Guide to appealing a block
Vandalism of an article
Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism
Blatantly inappropriate usernames, such as usernames that are obscene or inflammatory
Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention
Suspected sockpuppetry
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations
Urgent violations of Wikipedia's policies on
Personal Attacks
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
Edit warring
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring
Other
urgent
problems with a user's edits
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard
The administrators' noticeboards (e.g. AN and ANI) are not the appropriate place to raise disputes relating to content. Reports that do not belong at these noticeboards will be closed, and discussions will need to be re-posted by you at an appropriate forum – such as the
dispute resolution noticeboard (DRN)
Words of caution
සංස්කරණය
Dispute resolution is sometimes used by editors to try to
game the system
. This generally
backfires
badly. Remember that dispute resolution mechanisms are ultimately there to enable editors to collaboratively write an encyclopedia – not to win personal or political battles.
Under
Wikipedia:Decisions not subject to consensus of editors
, some disputes are resolved in different forums using those forums' methods.
History
සංස්කරණය
From 2002 to 2007, disputes were discussed at
Wikipedia:Conflicts between users
. The process subsequently moved to
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct
until it was shut down in 2014 and replaced by this policy.
The
Mediation Committee
(MEDCOM) and the
Association of Members' Advocates
(AMA) assisted in disputes in the early days of Wikipedia. The MEDCOM was created by Jimbo at the same time that he kicked off
ArbCom
. The
Mediation Cabal
(MEDCAB) also existed for a number of years to assist in guerilla dispute resolution, and at one point eclipsed the original MEDCOM in popularity and efficacy.
Notes
සංස්කරණය
WikiProjects are usually listed at the top of the article's talk page.
Please note that some editors have objections to receiving a template message – see the essays
Don't template the regulars
and
Template the regulars
for various sides of that issue.
ප්‍රධාන විකිපීඩියා ප්‍රතිපත්ති සහ මාර්ගෝපදේශන
සමාලෝචනය
පංච කුලුනු
ප්‍රතිපත්ති සහ මාර්ගෝපදේශන
ප්‍රතිපත්ති සහ මාර්ගෝපදේශන ලැයිස්තුව
ප්‍රතිපත්ති ලැයිස්තුව
මාර්ගෝපදේශන ලැයිස්තුව
ව්‍යාපෘති-ව්‍යාප්ත ප්‍රතිපත්ති
විකිපීඩියාව කුමක් නොවන්නේද
සංස්කරණ ප්‍රතිපත්තිය
සම්මුතිය
ගැටුම් නිරාකරණය
සියළු නීති නොසලකන්න
අරටු අන්තර්ග ප්‍රතිපත්ති
මධ්‍යස්ථ දෘෂ්ඨිය
No original research
සත්‍යෝක්ෂ්‍යතාව
අන්තර්ගතයන් පිළිබඳ වෙනත් ප්‍රතිපත්ති
ලිපි මාතෘකා
සජීවී පුද්ගල චරිතාපදාන
මකා දැමීමේ ප්‍රතිපත්තිය
අන්තර්ගත මාර්ගෝපදේශන
Citing sources
බහුරුත්හරණය
Do not create hoaxes
Do not include copies of primary sources
Identifying reliable sources
Notability
Map conventions
Patent nonsense
හැසිරීම් පිළිබඳ ප්‍රතිපත්ති
Child protection
ආචාරශීලීභාවය
Edit warring
හිරිහැරකිරීම
No legal threats
No personal attacks
Ownership of articles
Sock puppetry
හැසිරීම් පිළිබඳ මාර්ගෝපදේශන
Assume good faith
Conflict of interest
Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point
Etiquette
Gaming the system
Please do not bite the newcomers
සංස්කරණ මාර්ගෝපදේශන
ලිපියෙහි තරම
නිර්භීත වන්න
ශිරස්කසටහන්
අත්සන්
සාකච්ඡා පිටු මාර්ගෝපදේශන
Subpages
User pages
WikiProjects
විලාශ සම්මුති
Manual of Style
Dates and numbers
Layout
Lead section
Lists
Linking
වර්ගීකරණ මාර්ගෝපදේශන
Categories, lists, and navigation templates
Categorization
Template namespace
විකිමීඩියා පදනම
Licensing and copyright
ප්‍රතිපත්ති ලැයිස්තුව
ප්‍රතිපත්ති
මාර්ගෝපදේශන
විකිපීඩියාවේ
ගිණුම්
සහ
පාලන විධි
Unregistered (IP) users
Why create an account?
Create an account
Request an account
IPs are human too
IP addresses are not people
IP hopper
Registered users
New account
Logging in
Reset passwords
Username policy
Changing username
Usernames for administrator attention
Unified login or SUL
Alternate account
Account security
Password strength requirements
User account security
Personal security practices
Two-factor authentication
2FA for AWB
Committed identity
On privacy, confidentiality and discretion
Compromised accounts
Blocks, bans, sanctions,
global actions
Blocking policy
FAQ
Admins guide
Tools
Autoblock
Appealing a block
Guide to appealing blocks
UTRS Unblock Ticket Request System
Blocking IP addresses
Range blocks
IPv6
Open proxies
Banning policy
ArbCom appeals
Sanctions
Personal sanctions
General sanctions
Discretionary sanctions
and
Log
Essay
Long-term abuse
Standard offer
Global actions
Related to accounts
Sock puppetry
Single-purpose account
Sleeper account
Vandalism-only account
Wikibreak
Enforcer
Retiring
Courtesy vanishing
Clean start
Quiet return
User groups
and
global user groups
Requests for permissions
Admin instructions
Admin guide
Account creator
PERM
Autopatrolled
PERM
AutoWikiBrowser
PERM
Confirmed
PERM
Extended confirmed
PERM
Edit filter helper
Request
Event coordinator
PERM
File mover
PERM
Mass message sender
PERM
New page reviewer
PERM
Page mover
PERM
Pending changes reviewer
PERM
Rollback
PERM
Template editor
PERM
IP-block-exempt
Requests
Bot accounts
Requests
Global rights policy
OTRS Volunteer Response Team
Advanced user groups
Administrators
RfA
Bureaucrats
RfB
Edit filter manager
Requests
Interface administrators
Request
CheckUser
and
Oversight
Requests
Founder
Committees
and related
Arbitration Committee
Bot approvals group
Functionaries
Clerks
SPI clerks
ArbCom clerks
Governance
Administration
FAQ
Formal organization
Editorial oversight and control
Quality control
Wikimedia Foundation
Board
Founder's seat
Meta-Wiki
WikiProjects
Elections
Policies and guidelines
Petitions
Noticeboards
Consensus
Dispute resolution
Reforms
" වෙතින් සම්ප්‍රවේශනය කෙරිණි
ප්‍රවර්ග
විකිපීඩියා ප්‍රතිපත්ති
Wikipedia dispute resolution
Wikipedia conduct policies
සැඟවුණු ප්‍රවර්ග:
විකිපීඩියාවෙහි වැරදි ආරක්‍ෂිත සැකිලි අඩංගු පිටු
ඉංග්‍රීසි ව්‍යාපෘතියේ සිට ආයාත කළ පිටු
පළමු පරාමිතිය සකස් කල යුතු විකිපීඩියා කෙටි මග කොටුව
විකිපීඩියා
ආරෝවන් සමනය
මාතෘකාවක් එක්කරන්න