Wikipedia:Mediation Committee/Policy/Old policy

The basic philosophy of Wikipedia is to reach a consensus in decision-making; this allows for the creation and maintenance of a stable knowledge base. In line with these principles, a system of mediation has been set up. The purpose of formal mediation is to resolve disputes by introducing (upon submission of a request at Requests for mediation) a neutral third party into a dispute, who then directs discussion so that possible compromises are explored and then agreed upon. In formal mediation, this third party must be a member of the Mediation Committee.

This policy outlines in detail the process for requesting mediation, the common aspects and required elements of the mediation process (although much discretion is left to individual mediators to guide their own mediations independently and without dictation from this policy), and the operations of the Mediation Committee (which oversees and provides formal mediation) and its members.

Mediation
Mediation is a process in which a neutral third party, the mediator, assists two or more parties in order to help them achieve an agreement on a matter of common interest.

Preface
Decisions regarding article content on Wikipedia are made through consensus-building discussion, but it is occasionally difficult for the participants in the discussion to finalise such decisions without external assistance. The Mediation Committee provides such assistance by assigning an uninvolved mediator at the request and with the consent of all the involved parties. Only vetted and appointed Wikipedia mediators are members of the Mediation Committee and will be assigned to formal mediation cases.

Formal mediation is initiated at Requests for mediation by one party to the dispute. The other participants in the dispute then indicate whether they agree to or refuse to participate in the mediation. If all the parties agree, and if the other preconditions of formal mediation (which are specified below) are met, then the request for mediation will be accepted and a mediator will be assigned when one becomes available.

Definition and description
Mediation is a process in which a neutral third party, the mediator, becomes involved in a dispute (over article content) between two or more parties in order to help, primarily by directing a discussion between them, achieve an agreement on a matter of common interest. Mediation does not have a set structure or methods, and each mediator has wide latitude to develop and use his or her own method of mediation; but most cases have the following structure:
 * The declared "issues to be mediated" will be reviewed by the mediator and the parties, and amended or tightened up if necessary: most requests do not outline in adequate detail the specific areas of article content which are being disputed;
 * Establishment of the position each party has or opinion each party holds, in turn, on the various issues;
 * Discussion of the various stances on each issue, and the rationale for holding each position;
 * Exploration of possible compromises between the defined stances, and discussion of the merits of each stance;
 * Translation of the results of this exploration into a draft agreement or compromise (often in written form);
 * Formalisation of agreement.

Mediation is most helpful where there is a shared:
 * Difference of opinion on the disputed content;
 * Genuine desire on the part of the parties to find a positive solution to the dispute and to enter into a discussion about respective interests and objectives;
 * Intention of achieving a positive result through the help of an independent, neutral third-party not connected with any of the involved parties;
 * Intention of achieving a steady result, preferably a long-lasting agreement between the parties.

At the end of the mediation, the mediator may set out a formal agreement for the parties to accept—although some mediators prefer to help guide the parties towards developing their own agreement. Agreement to mediate does not, however, obligate the parties to accept any proposed agreements.

Mediators facilitate voluntary discussion, and aim to work and support the users in conflict to incorporate the information or viewpoints of both whilst ensuring that the result conforms to all applicable Wikipedia policies and best serves the aims of the project. It endeavors to produce sufficient peace between the parties to allow amicable discussion and prevent the need for future dispute resolution.

The Committee's mediators will use their discretion and judgment to recommend a solution to the disputants that serves the best interests of the project; where the position of one disputant is clearly unreasonable, fringe, or based on a strong point of view, the mediator is not required to subvert the integrity of the encyclopedia in order to reach a resolution. Likewise, mediation is not a forum for policy decisions, and if the locus of the dispute is not covered by current policy, the matter must be referred to the Wikipedia community as a whole. Under no circumstances will mediation between a small number of parties be substituted for a valid community-wide exercise in consensus building.

Formal and informal
The Mediation Committee provides formal mediation, which is an advanced step in the resolution of content-disputes process (or "content-dispute resolution" and is available only for those content disagreements which have failed to be resolved by earlier steps in the dispute resolution process. "Earlier steps" usually means unsuccessful attempts at informal mediation, requests for comment, or any other valid process.

Formal mediation is distinct from informal mediation, which can either mean: the simple informal involvement, in a quasi-mediator role, of a neutral third-party in discussions relating to a content dispute; or the actual use of the Wikipedia Mediation Cabal (MedCab) to provide structured but low-key mediation of the dispute. Whereas formal mediation uses a structured process and organisation to assign experienced mediators to a dispute, and follows a codified policy to regulate the process of mediation (although not the mediation itself), informal mediation simply makes available a third-party editor to attempt mediation of a content dispute. (There is little difference between actual informal mediation and informal mediation provided for by the MedCab, except that the MedCab is a place for parties to actually request an informal mediator should one not become involved of their own accord. This topic is dealt with by the page Mediation.)

Preconditions
A request for mediation will not be accepted unless these conditions have been satisfied:
 * 1) The dispute concerns the content of a Wikipedia article, template page, or image;
 * 2) The dispute does not relate directly to the conduct of a Wikipedia contributor;
 * 3) There has been substantial previous discussion of the disputed content;
 * 4) Except in extraordinary cases, earlier steps in the content dispute resolution process, such as requests for comment, or Third Opinion, have been utilised without success;
 * 5) The parties to the dispute are contesting the relevant content with genuine motives to better the involved articles;
 * 6) There is no pending request for arbitration which relates to the dispute;
 * 7) There is no open Arbitration case which relates to the dispute.
 * 8) Every party is approaching mediation open-mindedly, with a view to compromising (for no mediation can be successful without compromise by all sides).

Mediation process
Parties should request mediation from the Mediation Committee by filing a request at Requests for mediation. Guides and sample requests are provided there to assist parties in correctly filing requests.

Mediation guide
The Committee shall maintain a guide to mediation within its project page. The purpose of this guide will be to:
 * 1) Establish Committee policy on minor procedural points;
 * 2) Guide parties in filing for formal mediation.

The present location of the guide is Requests for mediation/Guide. The guide to mediation is an authorised codification of Committee procedure and should not be altered without the consensus of the mediators. Where there is a conflict between the guide and this policy, the conflict will be resolved at the first opportunity by a member of the Committee; in the interim, this policy will take precedence.

All editors are welcome to suggest changes to the guide, preferably at WT:RFM.

Procedure for requesting mediation

 * It is strongly recommended that an editor considering filing for mediation reads the guide to mediation which is more detailed than this section.

When a mediation request is filed at Requests for Mediation, the initiating party fills out a pre-defined format, listing the parties, the articles involved, the previous steps in dispute resolution, and a concise set of issues to be mediated, stated as neutral bullet points. The Committee is very strict about the form of requests, in order to prevent the massive debates and flame wars that have taken place in the past. Requests that fail or refuse to comply with the required format will be rejected; the Committee expects compliance with Committee policy and procedure as a minimum demonstration of the good faith necessary for mediation.

Once the request has been filed, the initiator is responsible for notifying the other parties of the request. More instructions on doing so are provided on the RfM page. Parties have seven days from the filing of the request for all parties to indicate their agreement to the mediation. If any party fails to agree, the mediation will be rejected, as mediation cannot take place without the agreement of all parties.

Shortly after all parties have indicated their acceptance of the mediation, a mediator (generally the Chair of the Committee) will check the accuracy of the request. If all parties have been notified, the required processes followed, and the procedure carried out, the request will be "accepted" and listed as an unassigned case. This is not to be confused with an agreement from a mediator to mediate the case; that comes at the mediator's discretion. (Mediators are not assigned cases by the Committee; instead, they have free range to choose which cases they are interested in mediating, and they will review an unassigned case and indicate if they are interested in mediating it.)

As indicated above, after the initial acceptance, a mediator will indicate that they are willing to mediate the request. At that time, the parties will be contacted and given the opportunity to make their case in full. It is at this point in the process that the parties set out their sides in full detail.

Parties should not hesitate to ask questions regarding the procedure itself. It is very important that parties view the mediation process as fair. Parties should remember that they may withdraw from  mediation at any time. If a party believes the process is not proceeding correctly, they may request help from the mediator.

 Confidential or off-wiki mediation
Although most mediations happen on public Wikipedia pages, mediation can be held in private—by email, over IRC, or on the Committee's private wiki. There are several advantages to off-wiki mediation:
 * 1) As the facilitator of communication, the mediator may rephrase harsh comments in a manner less likely to produce anger and emphasize apologies, points of agreement, and kind and forgiving comments. While the mediator will not alter the substance of a party's comments, they are permitted to refactor in a manner that prevents escalation of the dispute.
 * 2) Mediation, when held publicly, may be impaired by the involvement of well-meaning-but-uninformed users with little understanding of the dispute; this can have the effect of escalating the problem rather than resolving it. In particular, intervention of non-parties on the side of one of the disputants causes escalation. The mediator is empowered to exclude any non-party from participation in any mediation case at their discretion. They may not exclude parties to the dispute, with the exception of requiring a spokesperson for a group party.
 * 3) When two users are in conflict, they often say things that they strongly regret at a later point in time. As contributions to the wiki always remain in page histories, it remains an indefinite record for later reference, forever in other editors' minds. Even if the dispute ends amicably, it remains available for malicious use by others.
 * 4) Parties are often justifiably concerned that information revealed in mediation may later be used outside of the mediation process to their disadvantage. Confidential, off-wiki mediation is held in private and so offers an extra layer of protection that the usual mediation privilege afforded by formal mediation on Wikipedia.

Parties may decline to participate in off-wiki mediation even if they have agreed to on-wiki mediation. No party is compelled to participate in off-wiki discussions, just as no party is compelled to participate in mediation at all. Parties who decline off-wiki mediation need not give any reason and will continue to be able to play a full and equal part in the mediation process through the normal Wikipedia editing process. Declining off-wiki mediation will not be considered disruptive to the mediation process.

Assigned mediator
Mediators are not assigned cases by the Committee; instead, they have free range to choose which cases they are interested in mediating. Mediators review cases and indicate which ones they are interested in mediating; it is rare for a mediator to indicate interest in a case and be rejected by the parties.

There has been discussion within the Committee of various methods for valid rejection of a mediator. At this time, there is no established procedure for declining a mediator's offer to mediate. It is expected that should such a situation arise, parties will state a strong reason for declining a particular mediator, as all mediators are considered highly trusted and capable individuals. Parties concerned about a public statement may make their objections known privately to the Chair of the Committee, via email. Declining a mediator's offer to mediate is a serious matter, and should be reserved for extreme circumstances; if it is determined that a party's rejection of the mediator is a disruption technique or attempt to derail dispute resolution, the mediation may be referred to the Arbitration Committee for binding resolution. Parties should not be concerned about making known good-faith concerns and objections to the involved mediator, but are strongly cautioned against any attempt to abuse the system.

At any step during the mediation, the Committee may suggest a change in mediator. This may be due to mediator availability, the number of cases handled by each mediator, or other factors.

The privileged nature of mediation
'''Concerns that the privileged nature of a mediation case could be violated should be brought to the attention of the Committee chair.

It is very important for all parties to recognize and respect that all communications during mediation are privileged. In the interests of facilitating open communication between parties, the Mediation Committee pledges to protect any and all communications made during mediation, and in particular will attempt to prevent such communications being used as evidence in other dispute resolution or similar discussions, including (but not limited to) arbitration and user conduct requests for comment.

When made aware of any use of mediation-based communications as evidence in such proceedings, the Mediation Committee will make every attempt to prevent such use. If communications from a mediation case are introduced as evidence in a request for arbitration, the Mediation Committee will make known its strongest possible objection to the use of such materials, and will appeal the matter to Jimmy Wales where necessary. The Mediation Committee believes that the Arbitration Committee shares a commitment to protecting the privileged nature of mediation, as noted in their arbitration policy. The Committee is confident that the Arbitration Committee would act quickly and decisively to prevent such use.

The Mediation Committee reserves the right to decline to become involved in a situation where a party's bad faith conduct in mediation is utilized in disciplinary proceedings. Protecting the integrity of mediation does not extend to protecting users who deliberately disrupt and subvert official dispute resolution, and the Mediation Committee will not allow its policies to be abused to protect bad-faith actions. This Committee or its members will not participate in or submit evidence to any arbitration case that they have mediated; for disputes that the Committee has directly deferred to arbitration, MedCom's involvement will end once the case is accepted and will not extend beyond a balanced summary of the dispute submitted at the "requests for arbitration" stage.

Definition
Any editor with a substantial involvement in a dispute over article content will, for the purposes of formal mediation, be considered to be a party to any case relating to that dispute. An editor who became involved as an independent or third party, such as one who attempted to informally mediate the dispute, is not considered to be a party to the case, but should in most instances be listed as a party so that they may participate in the formal mediation proceedings as an uninvolved observer.

Groups of disputants
Mediation can occur among several individual parties, or between two or more groups of disputants. Any disputant may refuse to participate in mediation, by indicating so at the request stage, and may withdraw from the mediation at any point. No party is compelled to participate in formal mediation, although refusal to do so can result in the dispute being escalated, by the Committee or by others, to binding dispute resolution through the Arbitration Committee.

As the number of distinct parties with distinct viewpoints increases, the difficulty of reaching an agreement suitable to all also increases, and the likelihood of a successful resolution decreases exponentially. In complex cases, the mediator is empowered—working with or without the parties—to reframe the dispute as a number of distinct issues, which can then be mediated in turn, or even as part of a new mediation case.

Individual parties are permitted to authorise another party to represent him in the mediation proceedings, such that the proxy represents both himself and the other party. This can be helpful where two disputants hold identical viewpoints. Groups of parties may likewise choose a representative from amongst them to serve as a spokesperson. The mediator is empowered, if he or she determines that having multiple disputants on each side involved has had a negative effect on reaching an outcome, to require each side to select a spokesperson and limit further discussion from other parties. Should the parties fail or refuse to do so, or if non-spokespeople on either side continue to disrupt the mediation, the mediator may close the matter.

Spokespersons
Groups of parties with the same viewpoint on a particular issue may opt to appoint a single spokesperson for their faction. The mediator is also empowered to require the appointment of a spokesperson for some or all factions, and is especially encouraged to require this in cases where there are large numbers of parties.

If a representative has been chosen, even voluntarily, then the representative should be the only one who presents the views of the collective people he/she represents. Where a representative is operating on a voluntary basis, those who have appointed a spokesperson should seek the consent of the mediator to resume participating in the mediation on an independent basis. If the mediator has required selection of a spokesperson, then the other parties must speak through the spokesperson. Failure to comply with these procedures will cause confusion, thus jeopardising the effective running of the mediation case, and is cause for the mediator to close the case.

In exceptional circumstances the representative may be switched mid-process, but the consent of the mediator must be sought. Parties who wish to switch the representative of their faction should discuss this with the mediator, privately if necessary.

Appointment
Mediators are duly nominated and promoted members of the Mediation Committee. They are experienced and trusted Wikipedians selected by the current members of the Committee. Interested parties should read the information provided on the Mediation Committee's page.

Appointment is by consensus of the Mediation Committee (as determined in unclear cases by the Chairperson). Candidates may not be appointed without the support of a majority of the mediators who opined (by way of an explicit comment made on the candidate's nomination page) on the nomination. Candidates may not be appointed if their nomination is opposed by two or more mediators, per the Committee's two-oppose rule. Unsuccessful candidates may not submit a nomination to the Committee for six months from when the Chairperson closed the nomination as unsuccessful. Nominations must run for no less than ten days and no more than four weeks. At least 48 hours before closing a nomination, the Chairman must announce either on the mailing list or on the nomination page (and preferably both) that he will soon be closing the discussion. The Chairman should endeavour to not close a nomination in which there is ongoing, productive discussion: only when the consensus of the Committee is clear and looks unlikely to significantly alter should a nomination be closed.

Candidates must be notified on their user talk pages of the decision of the Committee (two templates exist for the Chair to easily do so: unsuccessful nominations; successful nominations). Promoted candidates must also be invited to subscribe to the Mediation Committee.

Duties and role
A mediator is first and foremost a facilitator. The responsibility of a mediator is to facilitate communication between users during disputes. Anyone can mediate informally between parties, but formal mediation is only provided by the Mediation Committee.

Mediators may not always follow the traditional model of mediation. In all cases they strive to achieve conciliation through negotiation. Mediators listen to both sides, they attempt to help each party recognize and value the other party's position. Mediators attempt to resolve differences in a mutually agreeable manner, and try to ensure meaningful discussions can take place.

What mediators are not

 * 1) Mediators are not emissaries. It is not the job of mediators to pass messages between individuals who are not able to communicate. Mediators work to establish the trust and common ground to allow direct communication.
 * 2) Mediators are not private investigators. Mediators do not "work for you", nor will they work to build a case against someone or research the facts in an article. Mediators will examine the facts surrounding the dispute in an attempt to understand what each party is looking for and to determine what may help to resolve the dispute amicably. The communications that take place during mediation are not appropriate ammunition for an arbitration case, and mediation should not be used as a case building exercise for arbitration. Abuse of mediation communication in an arbitration case or any other dispute resolution proceeding will be prevented (see the privileged nature of mediation).
 * 3) Mediators are not psychologists or social workers. Mediators work with all parties as a neutral third party; they cannot and will not counsel or give advice to either party involved in the dispute.
 * 4) Mediators are not advocates. Mediators will not take sides in the dispute or promote one person's point of view or request over those of another person.
 * 5) Mediators are not security guards. Mediators do not protect articles or talk pages from edits by parties, and will not watch for improper behavior or violations of rules and guidelines. Administrative functions like page protection may be utilized in the furtherance of mediation, but only where supported by Wikipedia policy. Mediators will not report any incidents, and will not serve as witnesses or complainants in incident reports. As always, the contents of formal mediation are privileged.

Change or rejection of mediator
There has been discussion within the Committee of various methods for valid rejection of a mediator. At this time, there is no established procedure for declining a mediator's offer to mediate. It is expected that should such a situation arise, parties will state a strong reason for declining a particular mediator, as all mediators are considered highly trusted and capable individuals. Parties concerned about a public statement may make their objections known privately to the Chair of the Committee, via email. Declining a mediator's offer to mediate is a serious matter, and should be reserved for extreme circumstances; if it is determined that a party's rejection of the mediator is a disruption technique or attempt to derail dispute resolution, the mediation may be referred to the Arbitration Committee for binding resolution. Parties should not be concerned about making known good-faith concerns and objections to the involved mediator, but are strongly cautioned against any attempt to abuse the system.

At any step during the mediation, the Committee may suggest a change in mediator. This may be due to mediator availability, the number of cases handled by each mediator, or other factors.

Mediation Committee
The Mediation Committee is the body of appointed mediators who provide formal mediation on the English Wikipedia. It is self-perpetuating and mostly self-regulating.

Chair
The Mediation Committee can appoint one of its members as its Chair, whose role will be one of co-ordination of the Committee's pages and processes and of representation of the consensus of the other mediators in matters where the opinion of the Committee en banc is required. The Chair must be appointed as a result of an internal discussion and must have the support of a majority of the mediators who participate in that discussion. The Chair does not have any authority to direct or control other members of the Committee, and cases are not assigned to mediators by the Chair. Typical duties of the chair include but are not limited to:


 * Requests for mediation: Accepting and rejecting requests on the Committee's behalf, ensuring required details are provided in requests, ensuring Committee policies and procedures are carried out, notifying parties of case status, alerting Committee members of unassigned cases, etc.
 * Wikipedia:Mediation Committee: Ensure proper formatting of new membership nominations, maintain archives of past nominations, promote or deny nominations (as the Committee directs), maintain the lists of active and emeritus members
 * Requests for arbitration: Monitor arbitration requests and represent the Mediation Committee's interests where necessary, making referrals of failed mediations where decided by the Committee as a whole, and protecting the integrity of the Mediation Committee's proceedings (for example, the privileged nature of mediation)
 * Internal: Maintain the internal mailing list and internal process pages
 * As spokesperson: Act as the official voice of the Committee for formal announcements (for example, the results of mediations, transferal of cases to arbitration, new Committee projects, etc.).

The duties of the Chair can be carried out by other members of the Committee when the Chair is unavailable.

The previous Chairs of the Committee, from the one who most recently to least recently served, were: AGK, Xavexgoem, Seddon, Ryan Postlethwaite, WJBscribe, Daniel, ^demon, Essjay, Redwolf24, MacGyverMagic, Jwrosenzweig, Danny, Bcorr, Sannse, and TUF-KAT.

Mailing list
The committee maintains a private mailing list for internal discussion between its members. The title of this mailing list, and the name by which it is usually known, is mediation-en-l, or simply medcom-l. Editors who wish to contact the committee in private should direct their messages to the mailing list by using this utility. Only appointed members of the Committee, and also Jimbo Wales, are subscribed to this mailing list, and messages sent to it by outsiders or by subscribers can be read by nobody else. The contents of discussions held on the Mediation Committee mailing list may not be shared with persons who are not members of the Committee, except with the written permission of a majority of the mediators, in order to protect the confidential nature of the private mailing list and to ensure compliance with Copyright.

MediationBot
The current Bot Operator of the Mediation Committee is.

The processing of requests for mediation and of some other aspects of the Committee's business is assisted by, an automated Wikipedia bot. MediationBot is operated on behalf of the Mediation Committee by User:Anomie and is part of the AnomieBOT family. The bot is only used for Mediation Committee business and the current version was approved for operation in February 2011. For a more detailed description of what MediationBot's tasks are, see its user description page.

Other versions of MediationBot, operated and written by other Bot Operators, have previously ran:
 * The first User:MediationBot, which is now User:OldMediationBot, was coded and launched in July 2006 by Tangotango, Misza13 and Pgk;
 * User:MediationBot1 was launched in November 2007 as a rewrite by ST47 of the old bot (which had become slightly unreliable).

The Mediation Committee expresses its thanks to all these users for their efforts in developing and producing the bot. If you have any comments, concerns or suggestions about this bot, please feel free to leave a message at Wikipedia talk:Mediation Committee. If MediationBot malfunctions at any point, please shut it down using the instructions at User:MediationBot and also leave a note on the Committee's talk page or on its operators' talk page.

Expulsion
There is no provision for the expulsion of mediators from the Mediation Committee, and there has not been (at the time of the writing of this policy) a need to do so since the inception of the MedCom. The rules for decision-making by the MedCom in relation to internal matters would apply to the expulsion of a member, should that be necessary: that is, that the decision to expel a member would be undertaken with the explicit support of a majority of the Committee and with good cause.