Wikidata:Dispute resolution

This page is a work in progress, not an article or policy, and may be incomplete and/or unreliable.
Please offer suggestions on the talk page.

Disagreements on Wikidata are normal; editors can legitimately disagree with each other on what structured data is appropriate or relevant for an entity or collection of similar items. Editors are expected to engage in good faith to resolve their disputes, and must not personalise disputes. Many disputes can be resolved without external input, through gradual editing, discussion, and attempts to understand the legitimate objections of others.

We're working on setting out some advice here, but for now, see en:Wikipedia:Dispute resolution for some general advice. For issues that demand immediate attention, please see urgent situations.

Resolving content disputes

This page in a nutshell: When two or more editors disagree over what to do with an item, they must talk things through politely and rationally.

There are many methods on Wikidata 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 their user talk page or the talk page of a disputed entity to do so; be civil, polite, and always assume good faith.

Follow the normal protocol

When you find an issue with an item, the best practice is to improve it if you can, rather than deleting salvageable statements (including adding references).

If a change is or appears likely to be 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 your change is reverted, continue to explain yourself; do not start an edit war.

If you think there is a problem in an item, but you do not know how to fix it, you can use Project chat to ask for help.

Discuss with the other party

Talking to other parties is not a mere formality, but an integral part of building Wikidata. Discussing heatedly or poorly – or not at all – will make other editors less sympathetic to your position, and prevent you from effectively using the later stages of 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 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.

Start the discussion in a place the other editor(s) will be aware and respond. On Wikidata the item talk pages are not always the best place for this, particularly if the involved edits cover many different items. You most often should initiate the discussion on the talk page of the other editor. Alternatively, a talk page of a relevant WikiProject may be relevant, or from time to time the talk page of the Wikidata entity itself is the right place. Be sure to {{ping}} the other parties involved so they are notified of the discussion. Honest discussion is a prerequisite to almost all methods of higher dispute resolution. If you wish at any time to request third opinions from other editors directly or on the Project chat, 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.

Focus on content

Focus on item content during discussions, not on editor conduct. Comment on the content, not the contributor of that content. Wikidata is built 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, tends to weaken your position, and may inflame the situation. Remember Wikidata's policy of no personal attacks.

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 as detailed below. But at no juncture should you lose your temper or resort to ad hominem attacks. Wikidata 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; there are no deadlines on Wikidata, 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. You may also want to consider leaving the discussion altogether as well.

Take a long-term view of the situation. You'll 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 an article isn't accepted now, it might very well be accepted in the future.

Disengaging is particularly helpful when in dispute with new users, as it gives them a chance to familiarise themselves with Wikidata's policies and culture. There are millions of items on Wikidata; consider focusing your time and attention toward a different item or topic, where you can more easily make constructive edits.

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.

Venues for urgent assistance
To request or report:	Go to:
Deletion of personal information from logs and page histories	Wikidata:Oversight
Unblocking (if you are blocked)	See the Guide to appealing a block
Vandalism of an article	Wikidata:Administrators' noticeboard
Blatantly inappropriate usernames, such as usernames that are obscene or inflammatory	Wikidata:Administrators' noticeboard
Suspected sockpuppetry	Wikidata:Requests for checkuser
Urgent violations of Wikidata's policies on civility	Wikidata:Administrators' noticeboard
Edit warring	Wikidata:Administrators' noticeboard
Other urgent problems with a user's edits	Wikidata:Administrators' noticeboard

The administrators' noticeboard is 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 Project chat.