Wikipedia talk:Confidentiality during mediation

note: what about the bulletin board? If a conversation is public there, what level of confidentiality is necessary? What about if a conversation is private? I think the latter case would be the same situation as e-mail.. i.e. the same as above.


 * I don't see how the board can be thought of as confidential as anyone can read it. If mediation is occurring there, the same rules should apply as if it had occurred on Wikipedia itself. Angela. 18:00, Apr 9, 2004 (UTC)


 * It's possible to set up part of the board to be limited to the participants of the mediation (although I can't block myself or Eloquence). I think in this situation it would be the same as e-mail, but that other stuff on the board should be the same as the rest of Wikipedia - i.e. possibly not admissible in arbitration (if clearly marked as part of a mediation) but that would be the arbitrators decision. -- sannse (talk) 19:46, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * I agree with keeping the boards inadmissable to arbitration. Perhaps this could be added to the FAQ if no one objects. Angela. 15:27, Apr 13, 2004 (UTC)


 * All the boards? Or just anyhting that is part of a mediaton? I mean if someone were to go to the boards specifically to cause trouble I think that should be admissable in arbitration. -- sannse (talk) 18:43, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * I see what you mean. We should make clear which boards are used for mediation and therefore inadmissable, and which ones are not. Angela. 19:34, Apr 15, 2004 (UTC)


 * yes, the private board (which is available but not visible to anyone right now) should definitely be covered. I think on the other boards we should mark any mediation thread in the first post ("this thread is part of a current mediation") and say in the FAQ that any thread marked in that way is inadmissible for arbitration.  How does that sound? -- sannse (talk) 19:53, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

"You retain the right to make any part of your conversation with me public": why is this necessary? Shouldn't confidentiality apply to both sides? I'm not sure I'd want what I'd written during mediation to be made public if I had thought I was saying privately in an email. Angela. 18:00, Apr 9, 2004 (UTC)


 * The way I see it, the main reason for confidentiality is to encourage open and frank discussion without fear that a participants words will be used against them. This shouldn't be needed for the mediator, who is acting in a neutral capacity.  But at the same time the lack of confidentiality will also help with accountability - I think our actions as mediators should be open to view by others if a participant wants them to be.  I also think it's important that it doesn't feel as though we are trying to hide anything by using confidentiality.  I think confidentiality should be seen to be for the benefit of the participants and not the mediators.  But this is all just my thoughts on the issue, I'm open to discussion as always -- sannse (talk) 19:46, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the explanation. I'm happy with that. Angela. 15:27, Apr 13, 2004 (UTC)

I think this may best be moved out of my sub-pages now. What's the best title? Mediation Committee/confidentiality? (can we have subpages in the Wikipedia namespace?) -- sannse (talk) 18:43, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * I'd rather have a title that was not a subpage. Confidentiality during mediation or something like that might be better. Angela. 19:34, Apr 15, 2004 (UTC)


 * Moved -- sannse (talk) 19:53, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

"specifically, nothing said in private during mediation will be used in any future arbitration." - Why is that? I agree that the information still should not be made public without consent from all involved parties, but just like it is possible to discuss an issue with another mediator (who will then be bound by the same confidentality rules), it should be possible to pass on information to the arbitrators as well. Or am I missing something important here? -- Schnee 22:47, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I think the reason for this is that people might be put off discussing the problems openly if they felt it might be used against them in a later arbitration case. People need to trust the mediator, not worry about what is going to happen to their conversations afterwards. Angela.