Wikipedia:Mediation Committee/Policy/Ratification

The policy for formal mediation is outdated and no longer fit for purpose, and a new policy is therefore proposed. The draft below reflects current practice, provides a more succinct overview of formal mediation, and proposes some changes as a result of community discussion.

This page proposes a yes/no vote among the Mediation Committee. A quorum for ratifying this policy is equal to the number of current, active mediators. A majority is 75% of votes. Comments on this process or the proposed policy (from mediators and non-mediators) is welcome on the talk page.

= Updated policy =

A core principle of Wikipedia is to make decisions by consensus. Wikipedia's dispute mediation process includes a formal mediation system to help implement that principle. This policy regulates this formal mediation system.

Formal mediation resolves a dispute over article content by providing a dedicated page (for consensus-making discussion) and a third party (to lead this discussion). This discussion establishes a consensus about the disputed content. This third party, the mediator, co-ordinates the discussion by exploring arguments and suggesting a compromise. In formal mediation, the mediator must be an appointed member of the Mediation Committee. Formal mediation may be requested at Requests for mediation.

This policy outlines the operations of the Mediation Committee (which oversees and provides formal mediation) and its members, the process for requesting mediation, and the common aspects and required elements of the mediation process (although each mediator has their own approach to mediating). This policy is controlled by the Mediation Committee.

Nomenclature
Mediation is a general process on Wikipedia, and refers to the involvement of an impartial third party in a dispute. Mediation in the general sense has a separate policy at Mediation.

Formal mediation is mediation provided by the Mediation Committee. "Formal mediation" and "mediation" are used synonymously in this policy.

Chairperson or Chair is a member of the committee elected to act or speak on behalf of the committee in certain situations.

Mediators are members of the Mediation Committee are appointed through the nominations process. These terms are synonymous in this policy. (The Mediation Committee can assign a non-member to an open case if that non-member is a credible nominee. This is a trial mediation.)

Committee or MedCom is the Mediation Committee. Where this policy refers to the Arbitration Committee, "Arbitration Committee" or "ArbCom" is used.

Majority, as in internal decision-making, is when the number of votes in support of a resolution is greater than 50% of the total number of mediators who have voted in that decision. All decisions have a quorum equal to half of the total number of active mediators.

Principles
Mediation is subject to several overarching principles, most of which mirror the principles which apply to general Wikipedia content discussion. Mediators must ensure that mediation proceedings comply with these principles.

In addition to Wikipedia's five pillars and other editorial policies, the following principles apply to formal mediation:

Mediated agreements are not binding. Any agreement achieved through mediation is not permanently binding. If consensus is achieved in a mediation case, the parties are expected by the community to honour the result. However, the consensus does not apply to articles outside the scope of the mediation, nor does it last permanently. Consensus can change.

Mediation is voluntary. Mediation aims to settle a question about Wikipedia content through guided discussion. Its result therefore requires the consensus of the participants in a dispute. Forced participation jars with the nature of the mediation process, so we cannot compel a party to participate in mediation. However, the refusal by an editor to take part in mediation in conjunction with a refusal to discuss one's position vis-à-vis content may constitute edit warring or disruptive editing, to which the response is usually blocking by an administrator.

Mediation builds compromise and obtains consensus. Mediators guide a dispute, using discussion, to a sensible compromise. The aim of mediation is to achieve a solution to which all the disputants consent. Mediators do not adjudicate disputes.

Mediation requires compromise by all parties. Mediation has the same difficulties as editorial debate and discussion, and therefore cannot be successful without a shared receptiveness to compromise among the disputants.

Mediation is not a stepping stone to arbitration. Mediation proceedings are privileged and cannot be used as evidence in an arbitration case or community user-conduct proceedings. If mediation is a stepping-stone to arbitration and "victory" over the other disputants is the end-goal, then mediation will be unsuccessful.

Mediation will not yield an illegitimate result. While the purpose of mediation is compromise, the committee will not allow compromise with or between illegitimate opinions on content. Views may be illegitimate in terms of site policy, obvious fact, or common sense. If a case cannot proceed without allowing illegitimate positions to influence the proceedings, then the mediator or the Mediation Committee will summarily close the case.

Mediators are not security guards. All parties must abide by Wikipedia's standards of due professionalism. Whilst mediators may use soft tactics (like removing or redacting argumentative or insulting remarks) to maintain focus in proceedings, they will not consistently enforce decorum or civility. If a mediator finds that they repeatedly have to enforce decorum, the case can be summarily closed and the matter referred to an administrator, the community, or the Arbitration Committee.

What is mediation?
Mediation is a structured discussion about Wikipedia content, guided by an impartial editor (the mediator). Mediation has no prescribed structure, but common features of mediation proceedings are:


 * The issue or issues in dispute will be established;
 * The positions with regards to each issue will be established;
 * The arguments for and against each position will be set out;
 * Sensible compromises between each arguments will be proposed (including sandboxing or producing multiple "drafts" of the article(s) or section(s) which are disputed);
 * Arguments for and against each compromise will be set out; and
 * A final compromise will be selected.

If there is support for this final compromise, that compromise is implemented. If no compromise can be formed in regards to any issue, then "no consensus" is the result and the mediation is unsuccessful. If there are several issues and a compromise is reached in respect of some but not all issues, the mediation is "partly successful". If a compromise is reached in respect of every issue, the mediation is "successful".

Any compromise formed through mediation will be presumed to have a current consensus and can therefore be implemented by any editor.

While mediation is not binding, mediators are authorised to ask each party to explicitly indicate their consent to the result of the case. Parties should not expect a compromise that accords precisely with their own preferences: consensus requires compromise, and consensus is the objective of mediation.

While mediators do not enforce conduct, they may establish standards of conduct at the beginning of proceedings, and they may ask that the parties read (or explicitly sign their agreement to) these standards.

Prerequisites
Requests for mediation may only be accepted if these conditions are satisfied:


 * 1) Acceptance of the request will benefit both the article and Wikipedia;
 * 2) The dispute relates to the content of a Wikipedia article or other content page;
 * 3) The dispute is not exclusively about the behaviour of a Wikipedia editor;
 * 4) The parties must have first attempted a less-formal dispute resolution method, such as third opinion, request for comment or dispute resolution noticeboard;
 * 5) A majority of the parties to the dispute consent to mediation;
 * 6) Among the parties who have consented to mediation, every major viewpoint concerning the dispute is represented;
 * 7) No legal or office action directives prohibit the dispute; and
 * 8) No related dispute resolution proceedings are open in other Wikipedia forums.

Common reasons for rejection of mediation requests are listed in the guide to mediation.

Requesting mediation
Mediation of a dispute may be requested at the requests for mediation process.

One editor (the "filing party") will submit the request for mediation, in the required format and providing any information about the dispute that the committee requests. The other parties to the dispute will be notified of the request for mediation upon its submission, and must then indicate whether or not they wish to participate in mediation of the dispute.

The Mediation Committee will decide whether the request should be accepted or declined. The request will be accepted only if the prerequisites listed above are satisfied. If a request is accepted, a mediator (or multiple mediators) will be assigned to the case and will then be responsible for conducting proceedings on the talk page. Complaints about the timely or competent conduct of a mediation case are a matter for the Committee's Procedures, so editors with concerns that a mediator is inactive or performing inadequately should refer to that page for the relevant, current procedure.

Location of mediation
Mediation will primarily take place on the "Wikipedia talk:" page of the mediation case information page and its subpages, and not elsewhere on the project. Limited discussion about the case may take place outside of Wikipedia at the mediator's sole discretion, but mediation proceedings must only take place on the case talk pages. Communications outside of Wikipedia is subject to all rules governing off-wiki communication.

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

To encourage participants to speak candidly, Wikipedia has adopted the policy that statements made during mediation cannot be used against the participants in subsequent dispute resolution proceedings. This protection is called "privilege". All communications during mediation are privileged. The Mediation Committee will protect all interactions made as part of the mediation proceedings, and will prevent such communication being used as evidence in other dispute resolution proceedings, including (but not limited to) arbitration and requests for comment on user conduct.

For disputes that the Committee directly defers to arbitration, the committee'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. No evidence will be submitted by the Committee or its members. The Arbitration policy prohibits the content of mediation proceedings from being used as arbitration evidence without this committee's consent.

Protecting the integrity of mediation does not extend to protecting users who deliberately subvert the mediation process. Therefore, if a party engages in disruptive or bad-faith conduct during mediation, and that conduct later becomes the subject of disciplinary proceedings, the Mediation Committee will decline to protect the privileged nature of the party's communications.

Mediation Committee
Only members of the Mediation Committee may act as a mediator in formal mediation proceedings, except for authorised trial mediations.

Responsibilities and jurisdiction
The Mediation Committee exists only to provide a recognisable body of users who are authorised to be mediators in the "formal mediation" dispute. The Mediation Committee is not an editorial adjudicator nor a Wikipedia governance body. The Mediation Committee will have jurisdiction over its pages (any Wikipedia, talk, and Category pages relating to Requests for mediation or the Mediation Committee).

The Mediation Committee, through its Chairperson, is responsible for deciding the result of requests for mediation.

The Mediation Committee as a whole is responsible for:


 * (i) Providing an adequate mediation service to disputants whose requests are accepted;
 * (ii) Deciding complaints about the performance of a mediator; and
 * (iii) Referring mediation cases that are closed as unsuccessful to a more appropriate venue.

The Mediation Committee's individual members will decide nominations by non-members to join the committee.

Decision-making in cases
The Mediation Committee does not vote on the outcome of its cases, because its mediators do not adjudicate disputed content. Instead, resolutions to open cases are achieved by discussion and consensus-building among the named parties.

Mailing list
The mailing list exists for co-ordination, mutual support among mediators, and to provide a venue for mediators to obtain feedback and second opinions on their cases. Limited discussion about other issues, like open nominations, may take place on the mailing list (though ultimately decisions regarding nominations must go onto the nomination page). As a group of experienced users, the mediators may also use the mailing list to discuss Wikimedia issues that relate to dispute resolution, because ultimately these may affect the formal mediation process.

Membership and appointment
The Mediation Committee was originally appointed by Jimmy Wales and is self-perpetuating. Users may only be admitted to the committee with the consent of a majority (with no more than one oppose vote) of the mediators who choose to opine on their candidacy. Mediation requires a unique and nuanced set of skills. Therefore, only members of the committee may vote in nominations. The mediators welcome community statements or comments and will take them into account, but will not be bound by them.

Members may be expelled from the Mediation Committee by a vote of the mediators if that vote has the (a) support of a supermajority (two-thirds) of those who vote and (b) participation of a number of mediators equal to at least two thirds of the number of active mediators. Inactive mediators may vote and will count towards this "number of mediators". The mediator whose expulsion is being proposed may not vote. Expulsion votes will last no longer than five days. The result of expulsion votes will default to unsuccessful.

Members must be expelled if they:
 * (a) Lose the trust of the community;
 * (b) Perform as a mediator to a grossly inadequate standard; or
 * (c) No longer serve the interests of the encyclopedia by retaining their membership.

Expelled members lose the ability to mediate cases for the Mediation Committee (as well as the right to perform any tasks exclusive to formal mediators). Expelled members are not emeriti members. Emeriti members are simply inactive, and are not expelled.

Complaints
On occasion, a party must question the actions, attendance, or competence of the mediator assigned to his or her case. In order to ensure that such questions do not detract from the timely, effective conduct of an open case, the Mediation Committee only accepts complaints about the actions of a mediator outside of the case proceedings. Do not make such complaints on the mediation case or case talk pages; to do so will be considered disruptive. The Mediation Committee has adopted procedures for submitting a complaint about the conduct of a mediator in an open case; you must use these procedures to submit your complaint.

Objections to the mediator who is assigned to your case, if raised at the beginning of proceedings and at the time the mediator is assigned, are separate from complaints about the actual conduct of a mediator. Parties who wish to object to the mediator assigned to their case may do so in writing to the Chair of the Mediation Committee.

Chairperson
The Mediation Committee may designate one member to be its Chairperson. The role of Chairperson is to speak on behalf of the Mediation Committee and to represent its interests to the wider community; the Chairperson speaks on behalf of the committee, not for it, and usually designates actions of his or hers that are on behalf of the committee with the text "For the Mediation Committee".

The Chairperson decides the result of open nominations, and will promptly induct successful nominees. The Chairperson is also solely responsible for accepting or declining requests for mediation (which are evaluated against this policy), or making temporary decisions as set down in the committee's procedures. However, other members of the committee may act in lieu of the Chairperson in the event of the Chairperson's absence or as part of pre-arranged cover of the Chairperson's duties.

The Chairperson is elected on the mailing list, and must have the support of a majority of those mediators who choose to vote in the Chairperson elections. The term of the Chairperson will not exceed six months. At the end of a Chairperson's term, a new election will be held. No limit is imposed upon how often one mediator may be Chairperson, even consecutively.

Procedures
Minor procedural matters that relate to the proper administration of the committee's processes do not require ratification on this Policy, and are codified on the Procedures page from historical practice and convention.

= Ratification =

Sub-procedures
The following procedural provisions concerning this policy will be adopted upon ratification of the full document, and will be copied to the policy talk page for later reference:


 * 1) This policy may not be edited by any non-mediator without the consent of the committee, excepting very minor changes (like the addition of interwiki links) that do not in any way affect the content of the page.
 * 2) No "See also" section or other miscellaneous content will be added except by the committee, so that only very relevant content is kept on this page.
 * 3) The Chairperson re-appointment provision will not be retroactive, and will take effect six months from the date of policy adoption.
 * 4) We have no control over the Mediation page (though individual mediators may edit that page outwith their capacity as a committee member) and that page is not affected by any adoption of this policy.
 * 5) Upon adoption, this policy will supersede the previous policy and be moved to the page Mediation Committee/Policy.
 * 6) After ratification of this draft policy, any obvious omissions that were present in the current policy (that which is proposed to be deprecated) will be resolved through internal discussion among the mediators.
 * 7) If any case is open at the time this policy is ratified, any provisions which might alter the conduct of the case will not apply. This policy will not have retroactive effect on any open mediation case.

Observations
When ratifying this policy, the following observations should be taken into account:


 * 1) Foremost, the policy removes the provision that all disputants must consent to mediation (per the community discussion on WT:MC and our own internal debate);
 * 2) The policy creates a method to expel members from the committee;
 * 3) The policy does formalise the previous though recently deprecated custom that the Chairperson will put himself up for re-appointment every six months;
 * 4) The policy prohibits two members serving as co-Chairmen (although in previous years this has usually been a very short-lived Chairperson term); and
 * 5) The policy retains the two oppose rule.

Voting
Members of the Mediation Committee, please endorse one of these proposals:

Either:

Or:
 * 1) AGK  [•] 11:06, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 15:10, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) I'm slightly uneasy that the 'Mediators are not security guards' section isn't entirely in accord with Mediation, however I agree with Anthony's note above to the effect that we aren't the maintainers of the Mediation page. Overall, I can support this, and I'd like to take this opportunity to thank Anthony for all his hard work in putting this together. PhilKnight (talk) 16:46, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * 4) — Mr. Stradivarius  (have a chat) 13:36, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * 5) Xavexgoem (talk) 17:08, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * 6) Lord Roem (talk) 23:38, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * 7) Feezo (send a signal &#124; watch the sky) 01:14, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * 8) I have the same reservations as Mr.Stradivarius, but I believe that WP:CONLIMITED may cause Mediation, to be the controlling policy over anything we adopt locally here without community-wide consensus.TransporterMan (talk) 10:43, 16 September 2012 (UTC)


 * 1) 


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.