Wikipedia:Responding to a failure to discuss

This is an essay.

It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints.

You've probably been directed here because your dispute resolution ("DR") request was removed or closed because there was insufficient talk page discussion. All content dispute resolution procedures — Third Opinion, Dispute Resolution Noticeboard, Request for Comments (though the requirement is very weak there), and (indirectly) Formal Mediation — require thorough talk page discussion, preferably at the article talk page though most DR volunteers are pretty flexible about where the discussion occurs so long as it is on a talk page, before a request for DR can be properly filed.^[1]

But what is an editor supposed to do when the other editor simply won't respond, or won't engage in the back-and-forth discussion that DR requires? There is no sure answer, but there are administrators who consider continuing to revert without discussing to be disruptive behavior and who will put pressure on the other editor to respond to you.

Overview

Here's what you've got to be sure of or demonstrate:

That your hands are clean.
That the edit that you're asking for isn't clearly in violation of policy.
That you have clearly asked the other editor to discuss, at least twice, and you've given them plenty of time to respond.
They've continued to revert rather than discuss.

The process

Here's my recommended process:

Make sure your hands are clean: You're looking for an administrator who wants to do justice, but to receive justice you must have been just. If you're involved in an edit war with the other user, or have been engaged in a conduct dispute with him, or have been incivil, fix that first. If there's been an edit war, with or without three revert rule violations, stop editing that article for awhile. What's awhile? At least a week and longer is better, a month is about right. If you've been involved in a conduct dispute or have been incivil, (a) stop it and (b) apologize and (c) if you can withdraw, strike out, or revert your actions without looking like you're trying to hide something, do it. Wikipedia responds very favorably to repentance and self-correction. But don't be fake about it: If you're still being a troll and an edit warrior on other articles or in other venues, just playing nice on this article probably is not going to be enough. Your hands must remain clean throughout this process, so don't just get clean here and go back to being a troll or edit warrior on other points.
Make sure that the edit you're asking for isn't a clear violation of policy or guidelines: No admin is going to go to bat for you if you're clearly wrong in what you want to do.^[2] There are approximately, oh, 10^23 non-DR noticeboards here at WP where you can go to ask if you're not sure. But one of the most general and most responsive is Editor Assistance Noticeboard. A list of more focused content noticeboards can be found here. Hint: Don't go roaring into a noticeboard talking about your dispute. That's likely to get you kicked back to DR. Frame it more like this, "I'm wanting to do X and I'm afraid that doing that might violate some policy. Will it?"^[3]
Ask for discussion at the article talk page: Say what you're wanting to do, why you're wanting to do it, and give your sources. Do it at the article talk page, preferably in a new section entitled "Request for discussion", not at the other editor's user talk page. Only discuss the edit and do not say a word about the other editor, himself. Not about his motives, his biases, his conflicts of interest, his skills, his habits, his competence, his POV, his POV-pushing, nothing at all, period. Do not use profanity or insults. If you've already asked, but included any of that, see step 1, above, clean it up and apologize and ask again, nicely this time. Here at Wikipedia we discuss edits, not editors. In discussing the edit be crystal-clear but brief. If you can't say what you want to do in a paragraph no longer than this one, then you should seriously consider breaking it down into smaller chunks if possible. If you want to include a draft of what you want to do, that's a great idea and it can be a little longer, but in no case create a wall-o-text.
Immediately put a note on the other editor's user talk page asking him to come to the article to discuss the matter: I recommend using the talkback template for this, rather than using a custom-written note.^[4] Put the following code in a new section entitled "Talkback [[Article name]]" on his user talk page:

{{Talkback|Talk:Article name#Section title|ts=~~~~~}}~~~~
Wait: Check daily to see if there has been a response at either the article talk page or at his user talk page. If there's not been a reply in a week,^[5] check the editor's user contributions (there's a link to them on his user page and user talk page) to make sure that he's been online during that time. If he's not edited during that week, then wait until 72 hours after his next edit (any edit, not necessarily an edit to the article you're interested in) to move to the next step.^[6]
Ask again on the other editor's talk page and wait again:^[7] Essentially repeat the last two steps, above, but this time (a) make the section header on the user's talk page "Talkback [[Article name]] (second request)" and use the same talkback code again and (b) only wait 72 hours after his first edit after you posted your new talkback on his user talk page.
Supplement your request for discussion on the article talk page: Say this:

'''{{Ping:Other editors name}}}''' I've given you two chances to respond to my request for discussion. I'm going to go ahead and make the change I've described above. If you revert without responding here, then I'm going to file a complaint against you at ANI for [[WP:DE|disruptive editing]]. — ~~~~.

Do not make other statements or threats.
Immediately edit or revert with specific edit comment: Make your edit or reversion in the article. For a edit summary, say, "See request for discussion on talk page".
If he reverts without discussing: Make a report at ANI. Read and exactly follow the instructions there, especially the part about notifying the other editor. Don't be insulting, just state the facts. For example: "I tried to make an edit at [[page name]] on such and such date and was reverted by [[User:Other editors name|]]. I requested on the article talk page that he discuss the matter with me, [[link to talk page section where you made the request]], and left a talkback to that request on his user talk page. When I hadn't heard from him in X days, I left another talkback. When he still had not responded in X days, I tried the edit again and he reverted me again, still without discussing. I know that I can't get [[WP:DR|dispute resolution]] without talk page discussion. What should I do? Isn't continuing to revert my edit [[WP:DE|disruptive editing]]?"

Good luck

There are too many variables and moving parts in this for me to be able to tell you that this is always going to work, so good luck. If the other user does respond with anything other than, "I'm not going to discuss this with you," then let the discussion begin. You know all those "don'ts" in step 3, above? Keep them going, even if the other user does not. Incivillity and trollishness only complicate matters. Stick to your content-only guns and you'll have the moral high road going into dispute resolution if you have to go there.

Notes, asides, and rabbit trails

^ Why? Because Wikipedia is built around a model of collaboration through discussion and edit summaries are not intended to substitute for that discussion. To allow users to just edit and revert and then jump straight to DR without even making an effort to talk out the problem violates that principle and encourages trollishness and edit warring rather than collaboration.
^ And that's especially true if your problem seems to involve copyright, information about a living person, legal claims, anything about pedophilia, and a few other legally-related areas.
^ And if you must mention the dispute, say something like "I tried dispute resolution, but they kicked me out because there wasn't enough discussion. At this point, I don't want to drag on the dispute if I'm clearly in the wrong."
^ Why? Because a talkback discourages a response there, rather than at the article talk page. This is a close call. It looks better if you leave a nice, coureous very brief custom note, but you do not want to have the discussion occur there: his good faith duty to discuss is to discuss at the article talk page and failing to do it there makes him look somewhat worse. Whichever way you choose to do it, do watch his talk page. If he responds there and not at the article talk page, try this: Copy his response, including his signature and timestamp, from his talk page to the article talk page, put your response there, and at his user talk page respond with, "I've copied your response to the article talk page and have responded there. I hope you don't mind, but I'd like to keep all discussion about this article on the article talk page."
^ "A week?" you cry? Yep. There is no hurry. Some editors only edit infrequently and don't get around to everything when they do. You can go a little shorter if you want to check his contributions daily, but I wouldn't suggest moving on to the next step in anything less than 72 hours after his first edit after you left the talkback on his user talk page and, frankly, recommend waiting the full week so that you've given him every possible chance to respond.
^ If he's not edited in a couple of weeks, then you're probably safe in going ahead and just doing what you wanted to do. A look at his contributions will tell you if he's an editor who edits for awhile then goes away for long periods of time, then comes back. Specifically dealing with that situation is beyond the scope of this essay, but the same principles apply.
^ This and the following steps presume, of course, that you've not obtained a response.

[1] Why? Because Wikipedia is built around a model of collaboration through discussion and edit summaries are not intended to substitute for that discussion. To allow users to just edit and revert and then jump straight to DR without even making an effort to talk out the problem violates that principle and encourages trollishness and edit warring rather than collaboration.

[2] And that's especially true if your problem seems to involve copyright, information about a living person, legal claims, anything about pedophilia, and a few other legally-related areas.

[3] And if you must mention the dispute, say something like "I tried dispute resolution, but they kicked me out because there wasn't enough discussion. At this point, I don't want to drag on the dispute if I'm clearly in the wrong."

[4] Why? Because a talkback discourages a response there, rather than at the article talk page. This is a close call. It looks better if you leave a nice, coureous very brief custom note, but you do not want to have the discussion occur there: his good faith duty to discuss is to discuss at the article talk page and failing to do it there makes him look somewhat worse. Whichever way you choose to do it, do watch his talk page. If he responds there and not at the article talk page, try this: Copy his response, including his signature and timestamp, from his talk page to the article talk page, put your response there, and at his user talk page respond with, "I've copied your response to the article talk page and have responded there. I hope you don't mind, but I'd like to keep all discussion about this article on the article talk page."

[5] "A week?" you cry? Yep. There is no hurry. Some editors only edit infrequently and don't get around to everything when they do. You can go a little shorter if you want to check his contributions daily, but I wouldn't suggest moving on to the next step in anything less than 72 hours after his first edit after you left the talkback on his user talk page and, frankly, recommend waiting the full week so that you've given him every possible chance to respond.

[6] If he's not edited in a couple of weeks, then you're probably safe in going ahead and just doing what you wanted to do. A look at his contributions will tell you if he's an editor who edits for awhile then goes away for long periods of time, then comes back. Specifically dealing with that situation is beyond the scope of this essay, but the same principles apply.

[7] This and the following steps presume, of course, that you've not obtained a response.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]