Wikipedia:Dispute resolution

This page documents an English Wikipedia consensus.

Shortcuts 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)
v t e

Conduct policies
Block evasion Civility Clean start Consensus Dispute resolution Edit warring Editing policy Harassment No personal attacks Ownership of content Sockpuppetry Username policy Vandalism
v t e

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

, 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

for more complex disputes.

For issues that demand immediate attention, please see urgent situations.

This section in a 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.

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 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

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 war

.

Discuss with the other party

Graham's hierarchy of disagreement

: Aim at the top during disputes.

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

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.

is inadequate.

Focus on content

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

Most situations are not actually urgent;

. 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 6,720,102 articles on Wikipedia. Consider focusing your contributions on another article, where you can more easily make constructive edits.

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

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

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^[a] 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

Third opinion is an excellent venue for small disputes involving only two editors.

Noticeboards

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 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
• source synthesis
• reliable
• external links

Requested move

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

pool of editors. RfC discussions related to article content take place on article talk pages.

Dispute resolution noticeboard

The

(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).

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

If the issue is a conduct dispute (i.e., editor behavior) the first step is to talk with the other editor at their

.

Noticeboards

If discussion with the editor fails to resolve the issue, you may ask an

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.

usernames for administrator attention (UAA)

are the main methods of bringing attention to usernames which may be inappropriate.

Sensitive issues and functionary actions

A small number of user conduct grievances involve sensitive or non-public information. These include issues where an

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,
  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

. 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

.

Last resort: arbitration

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

.

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 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

, some disputes are resolved in different forums using those forums' methods.

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

(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.