This page is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference. Either the page is no longer relevant or consensus on its purpose has become unclear. To revive discussion, seek broader input via a forum such as the village pump.
Current
This is the current dispute resolution process on the English Wikipedia. For each section, they are ordered based on their hierarchy from which should be used first to which should be used last.
Content
Third opinion—For disputes between two editors - receive an outside opinion.
Dispute resolution noticeboard—Informal noticeboard used as a first step in solving content issues, occasionally refers issues elsewhere.
Request for comments—A way to get outside input on issues from a broad amount of users.
Noticeboards—Ask questions and request assistance from people who are familiar with the policies and guidelines covered by each individual board
Mediation Committee—Provides formal mediation to assist in the resolution of content disputes.
Conduct
Wikiquette Assistance—Forum where editors who feel they are being treated uncivilly can request assistance from other editors in resolving a situation.
Arbitration—Last resort for conduct issues when all other avenues are exhausted, issues binding rulings.
Proposed
This is a proposed dispute resolution process on the English Wikipedia. For each section, they are ordered based on their hierarchy from which should be used first to which should be used last.
Content
Central noticeboard—For all content and conduct disputes, incorporating aspects from third opinion, DRN (and other noticeboards) and RFC. Discussion would take place on the talk page of the disputed page. This noticeboard should be able to resolve disputes the first time. (If it has been returned more than three times, refer to mediation). Replacing 3O, DRN and RFC.
Mediation—Last resort for content issues when all other avenues are exhausted, for resolving content issues.
Conduct
Central noticeboard—For all content and conduct disputes, incorporating aspects from third opinion, DRN (and other noticeboards) and RFC. Discussion would take place on the talk page of the disputed page. This noticeboard should be able to resolve disputes the first time. (If it has been returned more than three times, refer to mediation). Replacing WQA, RFC/U.
Arbitration—Last resort for conduct issues when all other avenues are exhausted, issues binding rulings.
Vision
Decreasing down to a handful of forums, makes dispute resolution more streamline and less processy as it eliminates confusion between various forums and no longer runs the risk of mass-spamming.
Decreasing down to a handful of forums, condenses the number of volunteers to central dispute resolution location instead of spreading out volunteers paper thin across an array of forums.
Decreasing down to a handful of forums, keeps it organized as a leaderboard will be created that shows disputes that are "unattended", "in discussion", "stale" or "resolved"- updated by bot or volunteers - so when there is an influx of disputes, it is easily managed. See WP:DASHBOARD for an example.
Decreasing down to a handful of forums, keeps it straightforward as a concise guide will be created explaining how to file a thread and how to volunteer and comment
Decreasing down to a handful of forums, makes it quick and satisfying as template notices will be created and used to inform editors when the status of a thread changes (i.e., from "unattended" to "in discussion"). This will retain editors who may not pay their fullest attention to the resolution of the dispute.
A central noticeboard would work like third opinion, because you offer your opinion on the talk page using a distinct template provided. It would work like DRN, because it's in a noticeboard format but allows for discussion on the talk page rather than on the noticeboard itself. It would work like RFC, because the central location will allow for more editors to see the dispute as does RFC, with editors welcome to comment.
