|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 requests for comments, mediation or, after all other methods have been tried, arbitration.|
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. In our unique Wikipedia context, a dispute raises a couple of questions: "What is to be done next? What is to be learned from this?"
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. Dispute resolution requests can help familiarize you with each of them.
Resolving content disputes
|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.|
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 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
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), use the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard (DRN), or open a request for mediation (RFM), 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. Requests for Comment generally require that at least an effort be made to discuss the matter in question before making the request.
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 the rest of the Internet: we expect editors to be polite and reasonable at all times.
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 themselves move 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. As of 21 May 2018, there are 5,653,051 articles on Wikipedia. Focus your contributions on another article, where you can more easily make constructive edits.
Resolving content disputes with outside help
While Noticeboards, Subject-specific help, and Editor assistance may well help in resolving disputes through increasing knowledge and obtaining outside opinions, they are not themselves dispute resolution processes per se. The order in which the following options are listed is not significant and they can, in general, be used in any order, though only one should be used at a time. The ordering of dispute resolution processes in terms of complexity, experience and volunteer expertise would be: Third Opinion first (if only two editors are involved), then Dispute Resolution Noticeboard, then Formal mediation, with the Request for Comments option being available at any point in that sequence. Please note that some Wikipedia processes such as Articles for Deletion and Requested Move have built-in resolution processes and are not ordinarily handled via Third Opinion, Dispute Resolution Noticeboard, or Formal mediation.
Participation in content dispute resolution is voluntary and no one is required to participate if they do not care to do so, but it must be borne in mind that in some forums and processes a discussion may proceed without an editor who chooses not to participate and consensus may be reached without the nonparticipating editor's input. Moreover, there is no policy or guideline which prohibits administrators or the community from taking an editor's failure or refusal to participate in content dispute resolution into consideration (or manner or degree of participation) as an item of evidence in a discussion about whether an editor's activities have, overall, been in the best interest of the encyclopedia.
The Dispute resolution noticeboard (DRN) is the place where editors involved in a content dispute can have a moderated discussion in an attempt to find compromise and resolution. DRN moderators are experienced Wikipedia volunteers who sometimes refer dispute participants to more appropriate dispute resolution venue(s).
Third opinions is an excellent venue for small disputes involving only two editors.
Request community input on article content
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.
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.
- Neutrality noticeboard – to raise questions and alerts about the neutrality of an article
- Reliable Sources noticeboard – for discussion of whether or not a source is reliable
- No Original Research noticeboard – to raise questions and alerts about material that might be original research or source synthesis
- Biographies of Living Persons noticeboard – to raise questions and alerts about violations of our biography articles
- Fringe theories noticeboard – for questions related to articles on fringe theories
- Conflict of Interest (COI) noticeboard – to raise questions and alerts about possible conflicts of interest
- External links noticeboard – to raise questions and alerts about external links
For general content disputes:
- Dispute resolution noticeboard – A noticeboard dedicated to moderated discussion between participants involved in a general content dispute.
Ask at a subject-specific Wikipedia:WikiProject talk page. Usually, such projects are listed on top of the article talk page.
Editor assistance helps editors find someone experienced to provide 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.
For more difficult disputes, you can request formal mediation from the Mediation Committee. Mediation is a voluntary process in which a neutral person works with the parties and helps them reach a settlement. The mediator helps guide the parties into reaching an agreement that can be acceptable to everyone, and will be an experienced, impartial member of the committee. When requesting formal mediation, be prepared to show that you have tried to discuss the issues but not reached a consensus. Mediation is only for disputes about article content; do not try to use formal mediation to settle grievances about what another user said or did to you.
See Wikipedia:Requests for mediation#File if you wish to request formal mediation.
Resolving user conduct disputes
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.
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. 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 must be made at the edit warring noticeboard and not to ANI. 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.
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.
The community may also impose general sanctions (known as "Community sanctions") on all editors working in a particular area, usually after a discussion at the administrators' noticeboard. Administrators employing these sanctions must issue appropriate notifications, and log all sanctions imposed, as specified in each case. The issuing of notifications is an informal process whereby an editor that edits a topic area that is subject to general sanctions is made aware that the general sanctions exist. Administrators may not impose sanctions unless an editor has previously been made aware of the existence of these sanctions. Any editor may make another editor aware of the sanctions, and then log the notification, as specified in each case. This notification is not a warning about editor behaviour, and may not be revoked. It is purely informational. Full procedures for issuing notifications mirror those of Arbitration Committee sanctions, as described here. Editors or administrators that wish to overturn an action carried out under the auspices of community-established sanctions must either appeal to the imposing administrator, or gain consensus for an overturning at the administrators' noticeboard. If general sanctions are no longer needed in a topic area, they may be revoked through discussion at the administrators' noticeboard. Likewise, editors wishing to report possible violations of community sanctions should do so at the administrators' noticeboard.
Sensitive issues and functionary actions
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, 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
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 mediation 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. Note that arbitration is normally for disputes about user conduct, while mediation is normally for disputes about article content.
For urgent situations
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.
|To request or report:||Go to:|
|Permanent deletion of personal information||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/3RR|
|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
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.
For dispute resolution requests, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution requests.
For the dispute resolution noticeboard, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard.
- Wikipedia:Don't be a fanatic
- Wikipedia:Mea culpa
- Wikipedia:Navigating conflict
- Wikipedia:No angry mastodons
- Wikipedia:NPOV dispute
- Third Opinion, Dispute Resolution Noticeboard, and Formal Mediation all have strictly-enforced rules against accepting disputes which are pending in other forums.
- Both Dispute Resolution Noticeboard and Formal Mediation have mechanisms for rejecting or referring cases if volunteers there feel that a case could better benefit from a different form of dispute resolution.
- Most importantly Request for Comments though it is possible in other forums and processes as well, especially if (but not only if) the nonparticipating editor's position is represented by other editors with the same or similar position.
- 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