Wikipedia dispute support

What does dispute support cover?

It covers disagreements about what an existing article should say, and the edits that come out of them. The situations we are most often asked about are these:

• a talk-page discussion about the article that has gone round in circles;
• an edit war, where material is being added and removed repeatedly;
• edits that add one-sided or poorly sourced criticism, or remove sourced context;
• an edit request that was declined for reasons that seem to misread policy;
• a negative section that has grown out of proportion to the coverage behind it.

Routine updates, where nobody disagrees, are handled under updates and editing. If the article itself is facing deletion, that is page repair.

What is our role in a dispute?

Wikipedia's policy on ownership of content is equally clear that no one owns an article, and that the subject has no right to dictate what it says. Our job is to make the strongest policy-based case for accuracy and balance, then let uninvolved editors decide. That is a narrower role than most clients expect, and it is the only one that works.

In practice we draft talk-page posts that are short, cite sources, and address the specific edit at issue. We comment on edits, not on the editors who made them.

What are Wikipedia's dispute resolution steps, in order?

The dispute resolution policy says most content disputes should start on the article's talk page, and that discussion conducted only through edit summaries is not enough. Only after real discussion has stalled do the outside venues come in.

Arbitration sits outside this ladder. It is for conduct disputes after other steps have failed, not for deciding what an article says. Our guide to when someone keeps editing your Wikipedia page sets out how these steps apply to a persistent editor.

When does the biographies of living persons noticeboard apply?

When the dispute turns on how Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons applies to the article. That policy says contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, without waiting for discussion, and the usual limit on reverts does not apply to those removals.

Removing an unambiguous violation of that policy is one of the few edits the conflict of interest guideline lets a connected editor make directly. The difficulty is the word unambiguous. The policy itself warns that what counts as exempt can be controversial, and suggests the noticeboard rather than relying on the exemption in a dispute over potentially defamatory material.

So our usual course is to raise the problem on the talk page, then take it to the noticeboard if needed. The noticeboard asks that issues be raised on the talk page first, and that defamatory material is never pasted in: posts link to the edit instead. For serious legal concerns, the policy points subjects to the volunteer response team.

What happens if there is an edit war on the page?

The edit warring policy applies to everyone involved, including the subject's side. Making more than three reverts on one page within 24 hours breaks the three-revert rule, but the policy is explicit that editors can be edit warring without breaking it. Reports go to the administrators' edit warring noticeboard.

We do not revert in a dispute. We document what has happened on the talk page with links to the edits, seek input through the steps above, and where the disruption is persistent, ask for page protection. Any user may request protection, but only administrators apply it, and the protection policy says it should not be used pre-emptively. See our guide to page protection for what each level does.

Why do we never canvass?

Because canvassing is notification intended to influence the outcome of a discussion, and Wikipedia treats it as disruptive. The guideline names three forms: messaging people chosen for their known views, publicising a discussion in slanted terms, and contacting people off-wiki by email or chat to persuade them to join in. Recruiting outsiders to sway a discussion is also treated as meatpuppetry.

Neutral notices are allowed. A request for comment can be announced on a relevant noticeboard or project page, with a link and a brief, neutral statement. That is the only kind of notice we post.

What can a dispute realistically achieve?

A fair article, measured against the sources. The neutral point of view policy asks articles to represent significant views in proportion to their coverage in reliable sources, and that cuts both ways: a well-sourced criticism will stay, but it should not take more space than its coverage supports.

Disputes can remove unsourced claims, correct misreadings of sources, restore sourced context and reduce undue weight. They cannot remove accurate, well-sourced material because the subject dislikes it. None of the outside steps produces a binding content ruling either: a third opinion is advisory, and the dispute resolution noticeboard says plainly that it is not a court. Timings vary. A request for comment typically runs at least a week, and its listing ends after 30 days.

Is it better to argue the dispute yourself?

For a single clear error, raising it yourself on the talk page with a source and a disclosure of your connection is reasonable and often works. Editors generally respond better to a subject who is open about who they are.

Disputes become harder when they are personal. A subject defending their own reputation tends to write long, argue with every reply, and describe the other editor's changes as an attack. Every one of those posts is archived on the talk page, and the next editor to arrive reads the whole exchange. A dispute escalated to the wrong venue, or before the talk page has been used properly, can be closed and sent back. Someone who knows which argument policy will support, and who can keep the post to a paragraph, changes how the discussion goes.

How do you start?

Send us a link to the article and the talk-page discussion through the contact form. Expect a reply within one working day. For a fuller view of the article's history, tags and past disputes, ask for a free page health check, usually within two working days.