Wikipedia:Dispute resolution Information & Wikipedia:Dispute resolution Links at HealthHaven.com

WP:DR redirects here. You may also be looking for Wikipedia:Deletion review, Wikipedia:Deny recognition, Wikipedia:Double redirects or Wikipedia:Database reports.

For the WikiProject on dispute resolution, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Dispute Resolution. For easy access to filing dispute resolution requests, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution requests

This page documents an English Wikipedia policy, a widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow. Changes made to it should reflect consensus.

Shortcuts: WP:DR WP:DISPUTE

This page in a nutshell: Resolve disputes calmly, through civil discussion and consensus-building on relevant discussion pages. There are several available options to request opinions from editors outside the dispute. Other dispute resolution mechanisms include mediation or, after all other methods have been tried, arbitration.

Dispute resolution (⇛)
Negotiation
Article talk pages Editor assistance (⇒) Third opinion (⇒) Request comments (⇒) Wikiquette alerts (⇒)
Mediation
Mediation Cabal Mediation Committee Request mediation
Arbitration
Arbitration Committee Request arbitration
Remedies
Editing restrictions General sanctions

This policy describes what to do when you have a dispute with another editor. See Wikipedia:Wikiquette and the essay Staying cool when the editing gets hot for more tips. Also please remember that Wikipedia is not about winning.

For easy and direct access to dispute resolution requests, along with concise and accurate summaries of their respective guidelines, use Wikipedia:Dispute resolution requests (WP:DRR). Note also that the "dispute resolution" sidebar (right) has direct links to filing requests for many of the dispute resolution levels, but requesting dispute resolution involves different guidelines and application processes for each level, and WP:DRR can familiarize you with each of them.

For dispute resolution involving edits by an Open-source Ticket Request System ("OTRS") volunteer, see our policy page on the volunteer response team.

Avoiding disputes

Focus on content

Shortcut: WP:FOC

Further information: Wikipedia:Editing policy

The most important first step is to focus on content, and not on editors. Wikipedia is built upon the principle of collaboration and assuming that the efforts of others are in good faith is important to any community.

When you find a passage in an article that you find is biased or inaccurate, improve it if you can. If that is not easily possible, and you disagree with a point of view expressed in an article, don't just delete it. Rather, balance it with what you think is neutral. Note that unreferenced text may be tagged or removed because of our policy on Verifiability.

Always explain your changes in the edit summary to help other editors understand the reasoning behind them. If an edit is potentially contentious, explain why you made the change and how it improves the article. If your reasoning is complex, add a section to the talk page of the article to explain it and refer to that section in the edit summary. If your edit gets reverted, you can discuss the reversion with other editors on the talk page.

In summary: Don't take others' actions personally. Explain to them what you're doing, and always be prepared to change your mind.

Stay cool

Policy shortcut: WP:DISENGAGE

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 on 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.

Discuss with the other party

Stay in the top three sections of this pyramid.

Further information: Wikipedia:Negotiation

When discussing an issue, remember to stay cool. If you encounter rude or inappropriate behavior, don't respond likewise. Take the other editor's perspective into account. Assume that an editor is acting in good faith until it's absolutely clear that they're not. It's at that point where you should consider dispute resolution processes that involve third parties.

Talking to other parties is not a formality; it's an imperative to the smooth running of any community. Not discussing 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 (or even remotely) successful, shows that you are trying to find a solution.

Also consider negotiating a 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 constant ongoing edits.

Resolving disputes

Further information: Wikipedia:Requesting dispute resolution

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.

Sensitive and privacy-related issues

Further information: Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee and Wikipedia:CheckUser

For any dispute involving OTRS-related edits, see WP:OTRS.

A small number of disputes involve information that is sensitive or not public. These may be issues where an Arbitrator, Checkuser or Oversighter has stated a privacy issue exists in the case, or it may be a dispute which one of the parties has concerns of a sensitive or private nature.

An issue where private (non-public) material forms a part of the dispute often cannot be resolved on-wiki since some of the reasons and evidence may not be accessible to the participants or might be forbidden to post (eg copyright or privacy issues). These issues are often sensitive, at times including issues such as legal and harassment, or BLP privacy.

Actions tagged as CheckUser or Oversight should not be reverted without careful checking beforehand; the presumption is that they have a good reason, and those aware of the reason may need time to recheck, respond, and consult. Such actions, if disputed, may need to be referred to Arbcom or the functionaries-en mailing list (for CheckUser and Oversighter) for review.

Such actions, if disputed, please ask the agent or functionary making the change before reverting. Sometimes the talk page will have more details and is always a good first place to check.

Ultimately, all English Wikipedia-based actions are open to the scrutiny of the Arbitration Committee as the final stage of dispute resolution on the English Wikipedia and as the body ultimately responsible for non-public information and privacy related issues on the wiki.

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:

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

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. While Request for Comment can be used for disputes about User Conduct, you can also request comments on articles, templates, categories, policies and guidelines.

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, and is a good place to learn dispute resolution techniques.

Formal mediation

Request formal mediation of the dispute from the Mediation Committee. 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. Mediation is only for disputes about Article Content, not for complaints about user conduct.

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 sockpuppet investigations.
If you are blocked and wish to request to be unblocked, 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

Further information: Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee, Wikipedia:Arbitration policy, and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration

Words of caution

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.

Contents