Wikipedia:ANI's discuss rule

The Administrators' noticeboard and the incidents noticeboard both have a "discuss rule" encouraging users with a grievance discuss the matter with the editor with whose actions they take umbrage, before posting about the matter on either of these boards. While this rule may be intended to push editors towards assuming good faith and resolving disputes civilly without creating drama and consuming the time of other editors, in practice, when the complainant is a new user, the result is often that it helps established editors avoid taking responsibility for their actions. This works as follows:


 * The new user discusses it with the editor first
 * The editor will react aggressively and with abusive insults. If the new user is polite in their message, the editors' friends and followers (who are alerted via their watchlisting of the editor's talk page) will accuse that user of being patronizing. If the new user responds in kind, then they are the one blamed for being uncivil. When they eventually take the issue to a noticeboard, this mob of editors will use either of these rationales (the newcomer was patronizing or uncivil) to boomerang the thread.
 * The new user does not discuss with the editor
 * The thread will boomerang against them because 'uninvolved editors' (aka, the editor's supporters who blindly defend them no matter what the circumstances) will blame the newcomer for not discussing the matter first, and giving the other user a chance to fix it. However, oftentimes the issue has been repeatedly brought up to the editor in question and they'll continue to ignore it or react aggressively when the issue is brought up. Because of the established editor's reputation, few will want to criticize them, and so they never face sanctions or even proper scrutiny.

Either way you slice it, this rule is systemically biased in favor the established editor with a lot of followers. It is thus, in practice, not a problem solving or dispute resolution rule of any sort.