I was, once, employed as the CEO of a 50 person business. We had many disputes, sometimes with customers who were in payment default. This was a livelihood threatening situation, not just for me, but for my staff. I didn't always succeed in retrieving the full debt, one never can. But I succeeded more often than not. I doubt, however, that is what you are after.
Early in my editing here I chose a difficult arena:
Talk:World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories. The article was a mess, and was riddled with POV and OR. I chose to act as one of two or three of what I might call 'article referees' (in the sporting sense - the guy with the whistle and the rule book). I arrived there in around September 2006, and you will find it all in the archives. As a green editor here I learned a lot, learned fast, and was able to assist the editors whose work constructed the article with keeping their thought processes clear. We
avoided it's becoming a dispute. It came close at times.
There is a regular dispute over the naming of Suicide of Foo, Death of Foo articles where I make the case that the articles are not biographies, not memorials, and are about the event, only covering the person insofar as they add value to the event. Often this has been very close to the event when those grieving are trying to create a memorial and others are trying to create a news/blame piece. This is a difficult area requiring an assertive approach coupled with a light touch.
How successful I have been in these areas is for others to judge.
One major area of dispute resolution is to foster in the disputing parties a peacefulness, a freedom from the need to be combative. We get that from time to time with editors who are
insisting that their treasured, and often
WP:COI and horribly
WP:POV drafts be put through at
WP:AFC. I have reasonable success in instilling a workmanlike attitude in them such that they work on the issues, not on the people who have declined their drafts. For those unfamiliar with AfC, COI is tolerated up to but not past the point of acceptance of a draft (custom and practice rather than rule driven). While one might argue that "this is not a dispute" the reverse is true. The editor is at loggerheads with Wikipedia and, often, anyone who gets in their way. It is not Formal Wikipedia Dispute Resolution, with initial capitals. There is no forming of and interpreting of consensus. This is not a dispute resolution forum. This is good old fashioned building of a working relationship intended to solve problems. This type of work prevents formal disputes from starting and escalating. It also comes back to handling real or potential incivility. This is a necessary skill for true
arbitration.