It may be clear, after some discussion, that you and other editors involved in a content dispute aren’t making much progress in resolving a dispute. Sometimes no one’s aware of a particularly relevant policy or guideline; sometimes one side or the other can’t state clearly what they object to or why; and sometimes editors have different opinions about what’s acceptable at Wikipedia. Regardless of the reason, some informal discussions just aren’t particularly productive.
Wikipedia has a number of ways editors in a dispute can get assistance. Don’t hesitate to use them when progress slows or stops. These resources exist because editors do need help, even when everyone’s being reasonable. (And, unfortunately, sometimes editors aren’t reasonable, so getting help is even more important.)
As mentioned earlier, Wikipedia:Dispute resolution (shortcut: WP:DR) lays out the recommended process for resolving content disputes. Which processes you use, and in what order, depends on the nature of the dispute. But in general, try following the order listed in this section, starting with editor assistance. And take it slow: The Wikipedia community doesn’t like what it calls forum shopping, where the same question is posted on multiple pages without waiting to see if the first posting gets satisfactory answers.
Note
With the exception of the first of the six options discussed on the next three pages—editor assistance—anytime there’s a content discussion somewhere other than the article talk page, someone should add a note to the article talk page that links to that outside discussion.
Wikipedia:Editor assistance (shortcut: WP:EA) is an informal way of getting one-to-one advice, feedback, and counseling from another, more experienced editor. You can get this advice in two ways: You can post something on the Requests page, or you can contact one of the editors listed on the primary page.
If you ask at the editor assistance page, it should be about processes and policy, not to get a tie-breaking vote regarding content. Or, put differently, you should be looking for a way to restart or improve the informal discussion, if possible, not trying to get someone else to join in the discussion among you and other editors. (If you want to get other editors to join an existing discussion, you can ask at a WikiProject or use the RfC process, below.)
Note
If you decide to go the route of asking an editor directly for advice, be sure to check the User Contributions page of the editor you’re thinking of asking. You want to pick someone who has edited in the last day or so, not someone who has largely stopped editing but has forgotten to remove his name from the list.
If the matter involves some specialized knowledge, like terminology for Canadian football, then a good place to ask for comments is at a WikiProject (Chapter 9). For example, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Canadian football. You can find the directory of WikiProjects—over a thousand exist—at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory (shortcut: WP:PROJDIR).
If the matter concerns the interpretation of a policy or guideline, try posting a question at the talk page of the policy or guideline. For example, suppose editors disagree on whether combining statistics from a report is a synthesis of information that’s not allowed by the “no original research” policy. In that case, posting at the page Wikipedia talk:No original research might get a good answer from an editor who is particularly interested in how the policy has been interpreted in the past, or should be interpreted. (If you don’t get much of a response in 3 or 4 days, try another approach.)
Note
It’s courteous to discuss, with the other editors involved in a content dispute, the wording of a query before you post it. In fact, the process of agreeing on wording may clarify matters. Don’t try to bias the wording to favor your side of the argument, and if you get some proposed wording from the other side that seems biased, don’t comment about the perceived bias, just propose a change. User talk pages are good places to discuss such wording, since it’s about process, not about content changes to the article.
Wikipedia:Third opinion (shortcut: WP:3O) is a place to request a third-party mediator to review the arguments presented and offer an opinion. Only two editors can be involved; if there are more, you have to use another alternative. After you post the request, a mediator (from a group of editors who have volunteered to help) will read the discussion and post her opinion. Hopefully that editor’s opinion will help resolve things. (The chances are better that it will if the other editor has agreed to the WP:3O process, though agreement’s not mandatory).
The Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal (shortcut: WP:MEDCAB) provides informal mediation for disputes on Wikipedia. The page states, “Mediation is purely voluntary. All interested parties must be willing to accept mediation. If any interested party does not accept mediation, we cannot help.”
This informal mediation is only as good as the mediators who handle each case, who are other editors (unscreened volunteers) with limited time. If your mediator vanishes, don’t be shy about posting a request for a new one. And don’t expect an instant response, since the service may have a backlog. Some mediators here are very good, but they can only make progress if both sides are willing to try for an acceptable compromise. If the mediator proposes something that you can live with, but isn’t perfect, give strong consideration to accepting that proposal. (Good wording is, “That’s okay with me if it’s okay with the others.”)
On Wikipedia:Requests for comment (shortcut: WP:RFC), you’ll find a link at the top of the page to the section “Request comment on articles”. Article RfCs are split out by general topic; pick whichever area seems appropriate.
RfCs aim to get a number of other editors to join in a discussion, thereby (hopefully) getting something approaching (rough) consensus. Splitting RfCS into a number of general topics is intended to encourage editors to pick an area and comment on a number of RfCs in that area.
Although RfCs are the first step in the Wikipedia’s formal dispute resolution process, an RfC does not result in a formal decision or in any enforcement action by administrators. Rather, the intent is that the involved editors, in view of comments by others that are posted via the RfC, change their minds sufficiently to be able to reach an agreement on changes to the article.
Getting a case listed at Requests for Mediation (shortcut: WP:RFM) is the second step in Wikipedia’s formal dispute resolution process. Formal mediation is carried out by members of the Mediation Committee, whose members are experienced editors who have demonstrated sufficient skills to be selected for that committee. The Mediation Committee considers requests to open new cases only where all parties to the dispute indicate willingness to take part in mediation, and, most of the time, have attempted informal resolution first. Parties are given 7 days from the time of the initial request to indicate that they’re willing to participate.
Disputes that can’t be resolved through mediation, or where editors are unwilling to take part in voluntary dispute resolution, may be referred by the Mediation Committee to the Arbitration Committee for binding resolution, including sanctions.
Note
The Arbitration Committee does not rule on content disputes. The focus of arbitration is on behavior. If one or more editors are referred to the Arbitration Committee after, or in lieu of mediation, it would be because editors refused to seek compromise or otherwise behaved improperly. (For more on the Arbitration Committee, see The Arbitration Committee).