Wikipedia:Resolving disputes

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

For the WikiProject on dispute resolution, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Dispute Resolution.

This page documents an official English Wikipedia policy, a widely accepted standard that should normally be followed by all editors. Any edit to this page should reflect consensus. If in doubt, consider discussing changes on the talk page.

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 Requests for comment Wikiquette alerts
Mediation
Mediation Cabal Mediation Committee Requests for mediation
Arbitration
Arbitration Committee Requests for arbitration Completed requests Arbitration clarifications Request Arbitration enforcement
Remedies
Editing restrictions General sanctions Mentorship

This policy describes what to do when you have a dispute with another editor. Also see Wikipedia:Wikiquette and the essay Wikipedia:Staying cool when the editing gets hot for more tips.

1 Focus on content
2 Stay cool
3 Discuss with the other party
4 Turn to others for help
5 If the situation is urgent
6 Last resort: Arbitration
7 See also

Focus on content

Shortcut: WP:FOC

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, because other people can agree with you through that. If an edit is potentially contentious, explain why you made the change and how it improves the article if you can. If your edit gets reverted, then start a conversation with other editors on the talkpage.

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 over 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 3rd 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.

Turn to others for help

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.

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:

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

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. Note that Request for Comment is normally a necessary step before Arbitration can be sought, and is normally for disputes about User Conduct, although you can also request comments on articles, templates or categories.

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.

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. Again, note that Mediation is only for disputes about Article Content—and 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 suspected sock puppets.
If you are blocked, 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.

See also: 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 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.