Wikipedia:Community enforceable mediation/faq

Frequently asked questions about Community enforceable mediation, an experimental new option for Dispute resolution.

Up until now the only place where policy enforcement dovetailed with dispute resolution was arbitration. A lack of options made things tough on editors who had a content dispute that included policy violations. Administrators often referred these situations to dispute resolution, but other forms of dispute resolution depend on a level of trust that may have broken down between these individuals. Full arbitration is slow and laborious so this provides a streamlined alternative for some situations. All other mediations are nonbinding. Here the participants can enter a binding contract where they can apply arbitration-like remedies on themselves. So they might agree to mutual WP:1RR or civility parole. When the agreement finalizes those remedies become enforceable. It means the mediation can end in a binding agreement that administrators could enforce with user blocks, similar to how some arbitration remedies result in temporary blocks. The community gets final approval before a proposed resolution becomes binding. They consider the proposal as a package deal, not a line item veto. Three results are possible: the community could accept the solution, reject it and close mediation, or return it for refinement and resubmission. If no consensus forms the default outcome is return. The community would enforce the decision so the community deserves a voice in the process. Consensus input makes certain the agreement is practical and adequate. Other Wikipedians who edit the same topics may want to make sure the remedies would solve the problems. Those people may have persuasive reasons to send the proposal back for refinement. That's a fail safe provision. Suppose the mediator makes a mistake and submits a proposal before both sides have agreed to the entire deal or suppose something happens during discussion that makes a participant want arbitration. The participants retain control in case of last minute surprises. Participation is completely voluntary up until the moment a community consensus discussion closes with an accept decision. From that point onward it's binding and the editors can't withdraw anymore. But as long as mediation remains open nothing is enforceable yet and any of the parties could withdraw and close the case. No surprises: both parties reach agreement on each provision and they confirm the solution is complete before the community discussion begins. The mediator screens the proposal before it goes to the community and the community screens the remedies by consensus, but neither the mediator nor the community can change a word. Both participants have to agree to changes. Yes. The participants can change their minds up until the agreement becomes binding. Once consensus closes with community approval the remedies become enforceable. After that point a participant who had a change of heart would request arbitration. If the alternative is arbitration, this is a lot simpler and more dignified. The mediator guides discussion and makes sure the solution is workable. The mediator would point the participants to some relevant arbitration cases. The participants would read and discuss the issues and start discussing how their own problem could be solved. Along the way the mediator would offer suggestions to keep the discussion focused and the mediator makes sure the solution is adequate before submitting to the community. The mediator also screens the case to make certain the participants can shoulder these responsibilities and don't exploit the process. If a participant doesn't understand the process or tries to game the system the mediator would close the case. Because this type of mediation has binding consequences, the participants should enter this process expecting to do some work. The mediator could take a very active role if the participants are serious about resolving their differences. But it wouldn't be fair to overcompensate for someone who needs to be led every step of the way. The initial community mediator is Durova. Seven people have volunteered as community mediator trainees, most of whom have prior experience with dispute resolution or mentorship. When each trainee is ready the trainer moves that editor's name to the list of active mediators. Both participants sign up at Community enforceable mediation/Requests. When a mediator accepts the mediator opens a mediation page and announces the case's opening at Community noticeboard. Yes, at a separate linked page. Other types of mediation could provide that. So could arbitration. But the community needs an open proceeding in order to review and approve its remedies. Occasionally some particular detail deserves to be conveyed by e-mail, but this wouldn't be the right venue if things are so touchy that the whole case needs to take place behind closed doors. The mediator would reject the case or close it early. The same goes for any situation where an editor appeared to be gaming the process. According to WP:CEM, assume good faith has already degraded by the time disputants consider this solution, so in order to avoid worsening a situation the mediator who rejects a potential case or withdraws from a case in progress is not expected to elaborate. No, participants can reach an agreement that doesn't include enforcement provisions. Cordial handshakes don't need commuity approval. Reports can go to WP:ANI. They should include a link to the relevant CEM case and evidence of the violation. The enforcing sysop would log the block on the case's mediation page.
 * Why do we need another mediation option?
 * How is this different from other mediations?
 * What does enforceable mean?
 * What's the community's role?
 * Why would the community need that discussion?
 * Why can participants withdraw while the community discusses the proposal?
 * How voluntary is it?
 * Can people get forced into something they didn't agree to?
 * Is there a point of no return?
 * So why would people want to do this?
 * What's the mediator's role?
 * Is that all the mediator does?
 * How are mediators chosen?
 * How does a case open?
 * Can the community comment while the case is open?
 * What if I want confidential mediation?
 * Let's be blunt: what if somebody is a disruptive troll?
 * Are remedies necessary?
 * After a case closes and becomes enforceable, how does enforcement happen?