Wikipedia:DRN Rule D

This is a set of ground rules for mediation, or any other dispute resolution assistance, that involves a contentious topic:
 * 1)  Be civil and concise.
 * 2)  Civility is required everywhere in Wikipedia and is essential in dispute resolution.  Uncivil statements may be collapsed.
 * 3)  Overly long statements do not clarify issues.  (They may make the author feel better, but the objective is to discuss the article constructively.)  Overly long statements may be collapsed, and the party may be told to summarize them.  Read Too Long, Didn't Read, and don't write anything that is too long for other editors to read.  If the moderator says to write one paragraph, that means one paragraph of reasonable length.
 * 4) The moderator is asking you to agree to these ground rules. By agreeing to these ground rules, you are agreeing that you are aware that this topic is contentious, and you are agreeing that disruptive editing may be dealt with under the ArbCom's procedures for contentious topics.
 * 5)  Do not report any issues about the article or the editing of the article at any other noticeboards, such as WP:ANI or Arbitration Enforcement.  Reporting any issue about the article at any other location is forum shopping, which is strongly discouraged.  Any old discussions at any other noticeboards must be closed or suspended.  If any new discussions are opened elsewhere while discussion is pending at DRN, the mediation at DRN will be failed.
 * 6)  Comment on content, not contributors.
 * 7)  The purpose of discussion is to improve the article, not to complain about other editors.  (There may be a combination of content issues and conduct issues, but resolving the content issue often mitigates the conduct issue or permits it to subside.)  Uncivil comments or comments about other editors may be suppressed.
 * 8)  "Comment on content, not contributors" means that if you are asked to summarize what you want changed in the article, or left the same, it is not necessary or useful to name the other editors, but it may be important to identify the paragraphs or locations in the article.  It isn't necessary to identify the other editors with whom you disagree.
 * 9)  Discuss edits, not editors.  This means the same as "Comment on content, not contributors".  It is repeated because it needs repeating.
 * 10)  Do not edit the article while moderated discussion is in progress.  If the article is edited by a party while discussion is pending at DRN, the mediation at DRN will be failed.
 * 11) If there has been edit-warring over versions of the article, the moderator will not select which version is the "right" version to be displayed during moderated discussion. Simply stop edit-warring.  The purpose of moderated discussion is to select between versions of the article, and the moderator will not act as an arbitrator.
 * 12)  Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion to statements by other editors; that is, do not reply to the comments of other editors.  That has already been tried and has not resolved the content dispute (since talk page discussion is a precondition for discussion at DRN).  Address your comments to the moderator and the community.  Except in a section for back-and-forth discussion, replies to other editors or back-and-forth discussion may be collapsed by the moderator and may result in a rebuke.
 * 13) Do not communicate with the moderator on the moderator's user talk page.  This is seen by other editors as trying to run around them.  If you have a question for the moderator, ask it at DRN.
 * 14)  The moderator may not have any background knowledge about the subject.  It is the responsibility of the editors, who are familiar with the subject matter, to inform the moderator about the subject matter, just as the purpose of the article is to inform the readers about the subject matter.
 * 15)  Be specific at DRN.  Do not simply say that a section should be improved, but tell what improvement should be made.  Do not simply say that "All viewpoints must be discussed", but identify the missing viewpoints.  If you say that the article has BLP violations, specify how they can be corrected.