Wikipedia talk:Mediation (2005)

This proposal is constantly under editing. If you wish to review the original proposal, I'll link it here for completeness sake: User:Inter/Mediation policy. Inter\Echo 01:08, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Right now a lot of these edits are showing up as mine but this is a collaborative effort. The bulk of the formal process is from Inter's proposal. The informal process is a bit of my creation based on a need for some useful preventative measures that are already done now. The importance here is there are two distinct parts -- the informal part which is preventative and early on in dispute resolution and the formal part where if the dispute isn't resolved it will be going to Arbcom for formal public presentation of evidence and whatnot.

The intent is to first, put mediation as a stepping stone to arbitration so everything doesn't just go to arbitration and secondly, give the parties one last opportunity to resolve things discretely and privately. Also, this mandates that formal cases WILL have a mediator assigned to them since there are two checks in place before it gets there: informal mediation and the Arbcom. --Wgfinley 01:24, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Somewhat Firmed Up Now
The core of the proposal is firmed up now though my collaborators will need to take a look.

We will be putting in some suggested changes for the committee page as well as the case submission page over the next day or so. --Wgfinley 02:38, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

A couple of notes
I'm not sure what the point of the AMA/AMI restriction is - surely conflict of interest clauses will cover any actual conflicts. It seems like the sort of person who is likely to say "I'm willing to help a user having problems" is likely to be willing to mediate disputes, so I'm not sure why they should be limited to one or the other.

I think the discouragement of mediators having any prior dealings is a bit harsh. Respected community members - who are kind of what we want for mediatiors, at least partially - are likely to know lots of people.

In both cases, I think the problem is the same - an excessive fear of conflict of interest. But I think, in the end, this is best served by trust - on all sides. The people involved in mediation and the mediator are capable of understanding and judging the concept of a conflict of interest. Snowspinner 04:09, May 9, 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree with Snowspinner. If users involved in a mediation case have reasons to believe any potential mediator (be they a member of AMA, AMI, or neither) has a conflict of interest, they may request that the mediator in question not be involved. I've seen many previous RfMs that made such a request. --Deathphoenix 05:24, 9 May 2005 (UTC)


 * As it stands now, this is pretty much up to the parties involved if they want to exclude a mediator, but it may not be totally clear. I will take a look at it. Inter\Echo 10:48, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

The only intent here is that they not be active members. This isn't to say they couldn't be mediators (I would be disqualified if that were the case) but once they become a mediator they need to go inactive on AMA or AMI. This is similar to when a lawyer becomes a judge, they no longer practice law because of the obvious conflict of interest that can ensue. AMA already has a rule as it applies to Arbcom and I think it should apply to Medcom as well to preserve the impartiality of the position. --Wgfinley 05:41, 9 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I've always thought that was a silly AMA rule too. :) Snowspinner 19:44, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

The front page
An initial draft can be viewed here: Mediation (2005)/Requests for mediation. Any comments are very welcome, as this is very rough. It is based on the ArbCom request page, although made gentler and any voting is thrown out. The fields should be pretty self explanatory, but if any questions, feel free to ask. Inter\Echo 11:16, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I like this, in that it addresses one of the problems I saw with mediation currently: there's no good system for requesting mediation. The mediation page is long on theory and short on practical steps. humblefool&reg; 03:26, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

I like this proposal
And am sorry that my wikifatigue has kept me absent from mediation pages for so long. It was probably unwise for me to accept my nomination as Chair, given that I had never been involved with mediation, and given that I stepped in entirely unaware of the colossal problems facing mediation here. Given my still-limited awareness of what is truly going on with Wikipedia mediation, I believe this addresses many of the issues I was concerned about, although I look forward to any innovations added by other editors with a vision of how to make this work. Jwrosenzweig 22:01, 9 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Glad to have your support James, I wanted to make it clear that this had nothing to do with the folks currently on Mediation, the process itself needed an overhaul. I'm glad you took it the right way and are supportive, feel free to add observations given your experience in doing it so far.  --Wgfinley 00:58, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I did send you an email about it JW, but I did not recieve a reply, thats perfectly all right as I know you have been absent. I am glad that you endorse this proposal. :> Inter\Echo 10:49, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure I like this proposal
I don't like this, esp. the section titled "General Mediation" for the simple fact that the "volunteer mediators" might not be skilled in handling disputes and might just make matters worse. And if official mediators are used, it would be virtually the same as formal mediation. JMBell° 13:25, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I can't even make sense of this proposal
I'm tired of trying to read long, poorly written policy pages. Instructions should be clear enough to be understood by a beginner in an emergency (see Ted Nelson).

I'm going to be more active in Mediation, now that there's a new chairman. I work better when there's someone to interact with, and I like the energy that's developed so far with MGM.

My style of mediation is insanely simple. Hear out both sides and encourage them to something in common they can work on. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 13:51, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)