Wikipedia talk:Mediation Committee/Archive/9

Draft of new policy
Draft: User:AGK/Policy

At, we proposed that the "unanimous party agreement to mediation" prerequisite be eliminated. In the same section, all respondents supported such change. Therefore, I have written a draft replacement for the current mediation policy which removes the prerequisite as discussed (and also, I hope, makes the policy more clear, relevant, and brief). My fellow mediators are reviewing the draft this week, and once they are satisfied I will propose the draft for adoption. However, comment from the community on the draft is also also solicited. All such comment may be left on the draft talk page.

I hope this draft will go some way towards making the mediation process more usable and effective, and thank you all for your continued interest and participation.

AGK [•] 20:18, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know if we should continue to characterize medcom as the "final step" now the medcab is gone. As well, arbcom has pretty involved in content, especially lately.  Really I think the separation between behavior and content is a fairly artificial and contrived one.  Disputes always involve both; it's kind of like electromagnetism, it's just two different facets of the same thing.   It may be better to say that the focus of mediation is content, not behavior, rather than presenting a strict dichotomy between "behavior issues" and "content issues" which doesn't much exist in reality.
 * But, on to the meat of your proposed policy:


 * 1) A majority of the parties to the dispute consent to mediation;
 * 2) Among the parties who have consented to mediation, every major viewpoint concerning the disputed content issues is represented;
 * 3) To provide formal mediation would be to the benefit of Wikipedia; and
 * 4) No other dispute resolution proceedings are open in relation to the dispute.
 * I agree with these, but I would add one related to what we are talking about above. Sometimes one side is just flat out wrong.  There is no point in mediation if one side is advocating something the clearly goes against policy or a relevant guideline.  Gigs (talk) 14:12, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * On your last point, is Mediation will not yield an improper result adequate? ("While the purpose of mediation is compromise, no compromise will be made with or between illegitimate opinions on content. 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.") AGK  [•] 14:54, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * MedCab went away because DRN is now largely shouldering the load that MedCab previously handled due to the absence of any other effective DR process between 3O and MedCom. Most disputes in which one side is Just Plain Wrong ought to be sorted out fairly well at DRN, though it is entirely possible that one might slip through the cracks. Part of the brief of MedCom, however, is that resolutions must be in the best interest of the encyclopedia. That means that if one side is arguing in opposition to policy or guidelines then the resolution must either be in favor of policy (i.e. the pro-policy side prevails) or a IAR local exception must be created by consensus and it is the obligation of the mediator to guide the discussion in one or the other of those directions. Best regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 14:56, 17 August 2012 (UTC) PS: And, just to clarify, let me note that it must be remembered that IAR local exceptions are only justified if making the exception would benefit the encyclopedia more than adhering to policy. TM — 15:03, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Could you update all the pages that mentioned medcab to point to DRN? Gigs (talk) 15:37, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Probably not. The "what links here" for Mediation Cabal shows over 5000 links. Even Requests for checkuser, which went inactive in January of 2009, has over 7,500 incoming links. Many of those links are in comments someone left on a talk page, and the authors of those comments may or may not approve such a change -- someone would have to ask each of them. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:40, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * We could put a very obvious notice on WP:MEDCAB that the resource has been superseded by WP:DRN and related fora. The description of MedCab is useful, but not as relevant as guidelines on where to go with current dispute. AGK  [•] 18:00, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I've done that and have also updated all the references to MedCab that I could find in other pages in WP namespace which are active pages. Best regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 18:34, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Pardon me if I'm not fully aware of the mediation committee's previous practices. But was it ordinary among mediators to have privileged communications with various Wikipedians? Is there some other forum where mediators talk to other volunteers and help them form agreements that no one else can observe? Shooterwalker (talk) 01:31, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * We have a private wiki for this, but it's almost never used, not at all within the past 5 years or more. So it's not ordinary.
 * Inter-communication for committee members is through our mailing list. --Xavexgoem (talk) 01:40, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Has anyone ever said that it contradicts the goal of creating an open encyclopedia? Part of what makes Wikipedia function is that you can see how every decision is made, how every version is arrived at, what every editor has ever said and done. I'm not ideological about this. Just curious if anyone else has raised concerns. Shooterwalker (talk) 06:01, 20 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Actually, you can't see how every decision is made. I could, for example, email you, we could make a decision together without anyone else knowing, then I could edit Wikipedia and implement the decision without anyone knowing you had anything to do with it. The actual edit would, of course, be visible to all, and if it was controversial, someone might ask me for my reasoning, but there would be no record of your involvement. Wikipedia supports this -- the email feature could easily be disabled -- but of course it should not be abused.


 * In some corners of Wikipedia this is normal procedure; we can't see arbcom deliberations, for example. We can even ask an admin to make part of the edit history for a user or a page invisible to ordinary editors; I have triggered this a couple of times by emailing (not posting) a report that someone has revealed an editor's phone number or home address.


 * I see no problem with such private communication. If we cannot trust someone to follow a policy of not abusing it, it would be silly to make a policy telling them to not use it at all; if they are willing to violate one they would be willing to violate the other. There are some case where private communication makes a lot of sense; if someone is Wikihounding or outing you, it is often best to contact an admin by email about it.


 * Also see failed proposal Confidential evidence. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:50, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Technically, organizing through email is possible. But it's really frowned upon in our Canvassing policy. I can see why mediators would like to be able to work confidentially with either side, to earn their trust, and to find potential areas of common ground. A lot of people are probably willing to compromise, but are afraid to show "weakness" in public. Anyway. Just wanted to see if it had ever been controversial. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:30, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Even at MedCab I used to caucus via e-mail, and I still do that here sometimes. If you're really lucky, you can get them on IRC or Skype. It's never been a problem. --Xavexgoem (talk) 17:55, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the current "Location of mediation" subsection may be a bit too restrictive for that reason. I've said more about it at User_talk:AGK/Policy. Best regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 21:06, 20 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Here's a question; what's the rationale for continuing to have internal self-selection (that is, mediators choose their successors)? Ironholds (talk) 05:03, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The committee seems to be self-perpetuating because the role of a mediator is unique and nuanced, and you can really only know what makes a good mediator if you are a good mediator yourself. (I think we've made a decent job of dispelling any belief that MedCom is a 'big deal' or that the nomination process is some sort of power trip.) Did you want to discuss opening the process up to community voting, or to making committee membership a free-for-all? AGK  [•] 20:25, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I think there needs to be a community element. I admire attempts to make MedCom "not a big deal", but the fact of the matter is that it is - not in the sense that Mediators rule from thrones made of skulls but in the sense that we need people to rely on Mediation more and less on Arbcom. Partly, I think the reliance on arbcom is because they can make binding decisions - but partly it's because they're a lot more public and transparent through the medium of voting. People know who they are, and the voting mechanism means they have a sense of legitimacy. MedCom comes off very much like the younger brother who was last in line when governance mechanisms were designed (which is not to say you're any less competent than arbcom, or any less worthwhile, precisely the opposite - but merely that there's less of a sense of "here is a legitimate formal body to take grievances to"). Ironholds (talk) 22:37, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with Ironholds. In addition, while you can argue that mediation is no big deal and can be not too illegitimately a self-perpetuating process (in so that mediators are self-selected) on the basis that the process is entirely voluntary; however should you intend, as in your proposal, to extend mediation to disputes where some parties refuse mediation, then you ought to have a more community-grounded process, in order to legitimize this new administrative power that would be hereby granted to MedCom. By administrative power, I mean determining a consensus as a result of mediation even though parties had refused entering the process ; you need to be elected by the community in order to have the legitimacy for that kind of power, much like admins or arbs are. Cenarium (talk) 10:55, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I guess the TL;DR of what I was trying to communicate: when someone comes to MedCom, not knowing what it is or whether it can be trusted or is worth investing a month of editing experience in, and they say "Who decided you were good at this?" the answer is "well, we did". It doesn't exactly inspire a sense of purpose. Ironholds (talk) 19:11, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Cenarium: We have no "administrative power". Wikipedia discussion does not ever involve an administrator passing judgement, and mediation is simply a variant of editorial discussion. Ironholds: For me, that the mediator has been recognised as competent by other competent mediators is more important than that the mediator has been popular enough to pass some RFA-type process with its arbitrary community requirements. The Bot Approvals Group is a good parallel. While community concerns are welcome in BAG nominations, ultimately the other people who are good with bots and coding decide whether a candidate would be a suitable addition to the group. The level of nuance in the skillset for BAG membership is similar to how unique the role of mediator is. But who knows? Maybe I'm terribly close-minded, or maybe I've tragically misjudged how difficult it is to mediate. AGK  [•] 12:43, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * May I interject, I concur with AGK. I would also note that it is important that dispute participants understand the reason why particular mediator got his position, but it is ways more important that mediators are competent. Any community-wide process involves too many side-effects to be credited on judging mediators' skills, and I would assume that every more or less experienced editor (this is mainly a reference to ArbCom elections) knows that MedCom people (as opposed to the rest of Wikipedians) are ways more competent in selecting competent mediators. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 12:58, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * How do we know that? It's a self-fulfilling prophecy; because the mediators lack almost any kind of publicity, we don't know who they are. Largely we don't know how good they are at their job. And if they are bad at their job, we have absolutely no way of course-correcting for that. Can someone explain to me how mediators can be expelled, and on what grounds? I see a very vague policy on the subject that contradicts the above comments. You're telling me that, for mediation, community trust is secondary to the opinions of existing mediators when it comes to appointments. Then why is "loss of community trust" a factor for expelling an existing one? In other words, we have a situation where the community's one formal body for mediation is not answerable to the community, but instead relies on the idea that self-selected and indefinitely sitting mediators will take the community's opinion into account when cleaning their own house.
 * Lets try to compromise on this. Seats on MedCom and the chairmanship appear to be indefinite and self-perpetuating short of full expulsion. How difficult would it be to just have term limits? Backdated a year from today, any mediator appointed or re-appointed more than two years ago comes up for a form of re-election - in which the committee (excluding them) can publicly vote on the appropriateness of letting them continue to sit, and the community has an opportunity to offer commentary on their work. Ironholds (talk) 11:46, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I like this idea, and I think it's better than the "expulsion" idea currently in the draft policy. The problem is the human element - if you nominate someone to be expelled from the Mediation Committee, then no matter how good your intentions and how saintly the nominee, there is a very high chance that it would foster resentment. I can see such a nomination all too easily becoming a big dramatic event, and given the nature of mediation and of the Committee I think we want to avoid that as much as possible. If we had term limits, though, I see things being far less controversial. In such a system I think the vast majority of renominations would be routinely passed and would take up a minimum of time. And it would go a long way toward dispelling any "ivory tower" images of mediators. A beneficial(?) side-effect would also be to motivate mediators to remain active in mediating disputes. — Mr. Stradivarius  (have a chat) 12:40, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Glad you like it :). Similarly - under the proposed policy, there's a term time limit (not a term limit) for the Chairperson. I'd suggest people sort out now how that term limit would be calculated the first time around; if the new policy is adopted, does the Chair sit from the start of the six-month term (which was presumably before such term limits were introduced) until a re-appointment? Or is there a re-appointment at the moment the policy comes into effect to avoid having a situation where the existing chair has the goalposts moved? Ironholds (talk) 13:08, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Ironholds, the new provision for Chairman term time limits is not retroactive; see the hidden section User:AGK/Policy. I figured the bureaucracy of the proposal was better hidden away during the drafting process. AGK  [•] 10:56, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Grand :). Ironholds (talk) 11:51, 31 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I am happy to introduce a one-year time limit on mediator terms, if the community wants to implement that sort of thing, but I would prefer we discuss that separately from drafting of the new policy so that we do not 'overdose' on reform. However, I wonder how precisely you imagine mediators would be put up for 'community review'. Would an RFA-type process be created, or would community comments on the existing nomination process become binding? Do you think there is sufficient community appetite for annual confirmations? If so, then I can't fault your argument, so let's do it. Regarding the ostensibly paradoxical "loss of community trust" provision, I had in mind a situation where a user obviously lost the trust of the community, because they left under a cloud or were site-banned. For example, User:Essjay is still a member of the committee, but has obviously lost the trust of much of the community; he would be a candidate for expulsion. AGK  [•] 10:56, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * That makes sense (the essay example, for instance).
 * So, on term limits and "community review"; are we talking about my original proposal or the compromise proposal? My commentary will be dependent on the nature of your reply ;p (for those who aren't AGK or myself - you're not expected to get that joke). Ironholds (talk) 11:51, 31 August 2012 (UTC)


 * @AGK, while MedCom and ArbCom are very different, the selection process for ArbCom gives it some legitimacy within the community. Maybe a similar process could be used to confirm existing members, and select new ones? They would need to demonstrate to the community what they've done in the past year in terms of resolving disputes - thus ensuring members of the committee don't become "rusty" from lack of resolving disputes. Steven   Zhang  Help resolve disputes! 12:39, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Steven, ArbCom candidates need to show their ability to assess the issues, while MedCom candidates should also show their ability to mediate the assessed dispute, which is something more advanced and more difficult to judge upon. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 13:12, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * True - maybe candidates and current members could link to disputes they've helped resolve so the community can assess their experience? Steven   Zhang  Help resolve disputes! 14:13, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, Dmitrij, I disagree. As Steven suggests, there's a fairly easy metric for success at mediating disputes. Ironholds (talk) 14:20, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * This fairly easy metric is so flawed that it is fairly useless and completely wrongheaded: the result of mediation, while depends on mediator, is significantly influenced by other factors, including (but not limited to) disputants' willingness to reach consensus, ability to listen others and mere luck. One could pick quite a lot of easy disputes weak mediators like me regularly resolve on DRN and at 3O, and have a perfect success rate. At the same time, even the most experienced mediator can fail mediation if he takes the most challenging cases in order to provide better handling then I would. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 22:45, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with CZarkoff. The problem is we're finding people who can resolve cases. The resolve-ability of a case depends as much on the case itself as it does the mediator, if not more so. It's easy to create a metric for mediators (success:failure), but that falls apart as soon as you consider it next to any particular case. I don't think you can attach metrics to the nature of a case (given the variables and how they'd change/become introduced/get deleted throughout the course of a mediation), which makes a robust metric for mediators difficult/impossible to create. Cases and mediators depend on each other for assessment, and the dynamics of this system are only familiar to mediators.
 * Unrelated to that argument, but on top of it, you have to consider that there are groups of editors who edit largely through their POV (civil POV pushers, nationalists, etc). These groups are likely to vote prolifically in these kinds of elections and might pull enough supports or opposes to change the nature of our mediator corp. Given the undue resentment or affection created between mediators and parties for entirely petty things, the difficulty of assessing how competent a mediator is, the difficulty of assessing how difficult a case is, what needs to be done in a particular case, etc., etc., all processed through an unfamiliar public with entirely different and often nebulous conceptions of what makes a good mediator, those groups can be very effective if they vote on the margins.
 * Finally, there's a reason why we pull candidates through DRN et al. The barrier to entry over there is minor-to-none, but you can become very familiar with DR. And that's what we're looking for: competency. Opening it to "the public" (who, by the way, do get a say in MedCom noms, just not through votes) could partially turn a competency vote into a popularity vote yet still maintain the pretense of it being otherwise. In other words, to ask for public votes in MedCom noms, you have to conclude that popularity (and all that entails) is a built-in component for a job based on a skill that the general voting public cannot, in general, accurately or efficiently assess. --Xavexgoem (talk) 02:36, 1 September 2012 (UTC)


 * No unanimous consensus exists about elected and appointed mediators, so I will push on with the draft. However, we should explore this issue in more depth, because it has some merit. In particular, I like the idea that mediators must be "confirmed" annually; Meta and Wikipedia are entirely different projects, but re-confirmations seem to work well there. AGK  [•] 08:49, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
 * (In response to higher up) Currently, mediation is indeed just discussion, with all parties having to agree to mediation, the continuation of mediation, and the final consensus/compromise for it to be successful. However, if not all parties agree to those terms, it's completely different. As you say, "A final compromise will be selected." and "Any compromise formed through mediation will be presumed to have a current consensus and can therefore be implemented by any editor." But, determining consensus in contentious areas is widely considered by the community as an administrative power. It is why non-admins are discouraged from closing contentious discussions. So currently you do not have administrative power indeed, but you suggest to be granted such power when you wish to make consensus determinations in cases where parties are not unanimous in desiring mediation or said consensus. Moreover, the question will arise of applying the mediation results to which parties object, which could involve administrative intervention, what is the value of mediation decisions in non-unanimously consented cases ? Some admins may consider enforcing those, which as such gives you indirect administrative authority, arbcom-like. So you need direct community elections to legitimate such authority, as admins and arbs, and you cannot grant yourself such authority by an internal policy, it has to be validated by the community. It might actually be a desirable development in our DR process. Cenarium (talk) 18:17, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * MedCom does not make consensus determinations, nor does it attempt to enforce them. When you have one editor who willingly drops out of discussion, the burden is on them when they say "no" later on (assuming the mediation was successful). --Xavexgoem (talk) 18:52, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Again I'm commenting on the proposed changes. Editors may drop out at any time of mediation, in the current setting if they object to mediation, mediation ends, you propose that it no longer be the case, that mediation can continue provided a majority of parties participate and major viewpoints are represented. It misses that in that case, parties do not have interest in dropping out, they should stay in and oppose any compromise that doesn't satisfy them (if they so choose). How will you then determine that mediation is successful ? The new policy states that "A final compromise will be selected.", although remaining unclear as to how ("If there is support for this final compromise, that compromise is implemented."), this in any way seems a weaker condition than unanimity, therefore implying discretion on your part; and for the reasons I stated earlier unanimity would be practically unworkable, so then you do have to make a determination of compromise, so effectively of consensus in contested area. So there is great need for clarification (also the principles section is incoherent with the rest). But as of now, this looks equivalent to a contested consensus determination. This isn't a problem, but community approval is required. Cenarium (talk) 20:41, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Question on timing of "lowering the bar" policy change
Above in this talk page, in late July & early August, there was pretty good consensus to lower the bar for formal mediation: specifically to relax the requirement that all parties assent. I know that AGK has a new draft mediation policy in the works, but I'm wondering if the existing policy should be modified now (for that one change: eliminate requirement for all parties to assent)? Or just wait awhile for the new AGK policy to get finalized (because there are several changes, and it would be wisest to adopt them all at once)? I have no strong opinion one way or another, I was just curious. --Noleander (talk) 14:36, 30 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your question. I will put the draft up for ratification very soon, so IMV it would be easier to wait until that process is finished. AGK  [•] 10:57, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * That's fine. I only brought it up because I saw a comment about a content dispute that failed to get to Mediation last week (on Bulgaria, I think) because the parties did not all assent.   I look forward to supporting the draft when it comes up for discussion. --Noleander (talk) 19:45, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Logistically speaking... what happens when the mediation begins against someone's consent? Shooterwalker (talk) 22:39, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Nothing other than what would happen if discussion of a content dispute begun without the participation of one or more disputants. AGK  [•] 08:48, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
 * In other words: we have a dispute over the Barack Obama article. Tendentious editors 2, 3 and 4, plus reasonable editors 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 all participate - Tendentious editor no. 1 refuses. Eventually, everyone except him or her comes to agreement (and therefore consensus), and if 1 doesn't want to follow it, that's fine: we're now in a situation where they're editing against consensus and it's a user conduct dispute rather than a content one. They can be topic banned, blocked, whatever. That the sort of thing you meant? Ironholds (talk) 11:10, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Sort of. My take is: They had the opportunity to participate in mediation, even while it was ongoing. They willingly removed themselves from the conversation and returned at a time when it was convenient for them. This is more obvious than removing yourself from a non-mediated, unstructured discussion and returning when convenient. That's odious enough, but kind of in a gray area. This isn't. Xavexgoem (talk) 11:27, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The harsh reality is that if some parties refuse mediation, it's likely they'll still participate directly or indirectly, and voice their opposition to any final compromise. Therefore they can't be counted off, and in the end a disputed consensus will, or will not, emerge. Such consensus determination in a disputed area is considered by the community as an administrative power, and if you want it, you have to get the approval of the community. Cenarium (talk) 18:51, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, on the plus side, stubborn editors are effectively taking themselves out of the conversation, which allows the conversation to proceed. But on the negative side, they could still show up at the last minute, after all the hard work is done, to vote "oppose". And I mean vote, not !vote. Someone who has no interest in discussing, only playing power politics. I suppose that's something we'll have to live with. It's still better than what we've had to this point, where they can even prevent the mediated discussion from happening in the first place. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:48, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I concur with Ironholds: if a tendentious editor refuses to participate in mediation, then later returns and actively disrupts implementation of the consensus-based resolution of that mediation, that becomes a conduct issue (Disruptive editing violation) that should be addressed at ANI.  If this happens frequently enough (after the new mediation procedures are implemented) then this sequence (refusal/disruption/ANI) could perhaps get documented as a part of the Mediation guideline. --Noleander (talk) 01:09, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * FWIW I would document it now: it would be fair to share this plan with a person, who is likely to get banned under it. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 01:18, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The draft policy that AGK is now proposing contains some wording to that effect:
 * But maybe that wording could be improved. --Noleander (talk) 02:14, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the key is that we can't punish someone for refusing to participate and refusing to discuss their position. But we CAN punish someone for pretending that a mediated agreement never happened, and failing to honor the consensus that was built among the more reasonable editors. What we're saying is that a refusal to participate in mediation can never recuse you from abiding by a consensus achieved through mediation. (Keeping in mind that consensus can change.) Shooterwalker (talk) 02:35, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, that has been in my draft from the very beginning. I think the policy draft is fine as worded. Although the policy could discuss in more detail the effect of refusing to participate, I don't think we want to bang on about it. AGK  [•] 08:05, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * This is only a minor part problem, a bigger problem is how to handle users no longer desiring mediation after it has already begun (which currently results in its termination), and even more how a final compromise is selected, knowing that in disputed cases where some parties reject mediation itself (but still participate, since they have no interest in dropping out, they should rather filibuster), unanimity is unworkable and therefore a weaker condition with some mediator discretion is required. The policy suggests this but remains ambiguous, those are my points in the above section. Cenarium (talk) 15:22, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * This is only a minor part problem, a bigger problem is how to handle users no longer desiring mediation after it has already begun (which currently results in its termination), and even more how a final compromise is selected, knowing that in disputed cases where some parties reject mediation itself (but still participate, since they have no interest in dropping out, they should rather filibuster), unanimity is unworkable and therefore a weaker condition with some mediator discretion is required. The policy suggests this but remains ambiguous, those are my points in the above section. Cenarium (talk) 15:22, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Inactivity in MedCom cases
I was having a look at the list of MedCom cases today and thought it might be worth starting a thread on this topic. From time to time, it seems that mediation cases go stale (India, Afghanistan and Pakistan being one example) or remain unassigned for an extended period of time (such as Continuation War). I completely understand that this can be due to lack of involvement or committment from the involved parties, but when parties are waiting ~ 1 month for a mediator, I think we may need to consider what we can do to remediate this. If the process takes too long, parties may become disinterested. What do we think we can do to improve the situation? Szhang (WMF) (talk) 03:11, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Steve. This is mostly a case of being short-staffed, I think. We need more mediators that are willing to take on cases, and there are a lot of cases coming in since the closure of MedCab. We could do with a few more volunteers to undergo the nominations process - do you know of any other people that we could take on as mediators? — Mr. Stradivarius  (have a chat) 15:42, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I thought about this overnight - with the closure of MedCab and some DRN cases being referred to MedCom, there has been an increase in cases. Over the last few months, three volunteers from DRN have joined the Mediation Committee, and no longer contribute there. I think this is a bit of an issue - DRN gets complex cases and it too needs good DR folk. I think a good idea would be to poke the emereti mediators and see if any of them have an interest to mediate. I can think of a few people that come to mind, but I think they are a bit green for MedCom. Steven   Zhang  Help resolve disputes! 20:42, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
 * We cannot control which mediators are active, nor can we do much about increasing our intake of new mediators other than to encourage volunteers to self-nominate. As for the emeriti mediators, in my experience trying to cajole them back into activity does not work. On 'leeching from DRN', making this committee responsible for that noticeboard is unhelpful. More generally, pontificating about activity is not something I'm interested in: we try our best to use our resources well, and to increase our pool of mediators, and we don't intend to stop those attempts. AGK  [•] 22:42, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying that MedCom is responsible for anything - I just think that the committee has a lot of talent already and using the resources it already has would be a better first approach. I did not mean to offend. Steven   Zhang  Help resolve disputes! 00:03, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

New policy adopted
The Mediation Committee is pleased to announce that we have adopted a new policy for formal mediation:


 * 1) This new policy has been published to Mediation Committee/Policy
 * 2) With some exceptions (detailed on the Ratification page), this new policy will take immediate effect
 * 3) The drafting and ratification processes archived to Mediation Committee/Policy/Draft and Mediation Committee/Policy/Ratification
 * 4) The old mediation policy still applies to open cases, and has been saved to Mediation Committee/Policy/Old policy
 * 5) The talk pages of the old policy and the drafting and ratification pages have been marked as archives, indexed on the policy talk page, and made into "soft redirects" to either this page or the policy talk.

Thank you very much to all the editors—mediators and non-mediators alike—who led or participated in the recent general discussion (on this page) about "lowering the bar" to formal mediation and about other general improvements. We do not intend the new policy to end this dialogue, and we would welcome continued, detailed discussion about specific ideas or proposals to improve the formal mediation process.

Questions or concerns about the new policy should be directed to the policy talk page. New or resurrected ideas or proposals about formal mediation, its effectiveness, and its role in assisting Wikipedia disputants can, as always, be brought here by using the "All other issues" link in the box at the top of this page.

For the Mediation Committee, AGK [•] 20:05, 18 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm very happy to see that this day has come :-) I'm working on a DRN style wizard that may make filing cases a simpler process, but also filter out cases that don't meet the bar for formal mediation. Steven   Zhang  Help resolve disputes! 06:57, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry Steven, but may be the bugs of DRN filing wizard should be fixed first? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 08:36, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Bugs? Szhang (WMF) (talk) 12:03, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * You must be kidding. Doesn't work with Internet Explorer, doesn't do sanity checks. There are many more, just didn't report as nobody cared to answer to previous reports. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 09:01, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The first bit (which has been narrowed down to incompatibility with IE6 and 7, but everything above IE7 works) I have tested and indeed can see that it's an issue. I'll get right on that. As for the second component, making the instructions clearer, explaining that a full URL is not needed, will do that, and in future the wizard will have instant search enabled (similar to how HotCat works). What other errors with the script did you notice? Szhang (WMF) (talk) 11:50, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Really multiple cases of input the script should normalize (plain links, wikilinks, page headings, etc.), there are layout problems (the buttons in the second stage are misplaced and appear below the page footer) and performance issues (script tends to freeze between second and third stage). Overall, I have to do some clerking on DRN which the script should do itself. Some of these are dependent on browser, some are not. BTW, I particularly disagree with implication that giving instructions is enough – we just don't need this script in a first place if such approach is taken. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 14:47, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

The problem with IE has been fixed - it was caused because IE6 and 7 doesn't support javascript too well, so some changes needed to be made. Layout problems are caused if the screen resolution is too low (I'm working with someone to fix any design issues that there are). What do you need to clerk on DRN that the script already doesn't do - the script does everything except instant search (which I would like to be enabled in a final version, but it takes time). I'm not sure what you mean regarding your first comment though. Steven  Zhang  Help resolve disputes! 20:58, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Full urls and wikilinks in articles names and links to discussion. Probably instant search could help, but I would like to see it in action first. BTW my resolution is 1366×768, I'm not particularly convinced that it could be called "too low". Regarding the first comment: some editors use plain urls and/or wikilinks, and the script doesn't detect these. It should check for problematic input and make user correct errors before proceeding. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 21:14, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
 * In coding, one is taught to code for the rule rather than the exception. If we write "Add the article name, in plain text, without the URL or wikilink and they do it anyways, then I don't think that's something we should enable. I'm going to see if we can make the wizard dynamic, so it displays properly on resolutions from 800x600 and up.  Steven   Zhang  Help resolve disputes! 21:32, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Square brackets is hardly an exception. In python: if "Xavexgoem (talk) 22:35, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
 * @Xavexgoem: I don't think that the words "JavaScript" and "good" indeed belong to one sentence.
 * @Steven Zhang: Where did you get that idea? In coding one is taught to support the likely usage scenarios, and I would say from my clerking experience that both scenarios are equally possible. Also in coding one is taught that users ignore warnings and disclaimers. FWIW some editors genuinely believe that the name of the WP:DRN page is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard, and I see no good reason to ignore this fact. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 23:11, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
 * @Xav, there's a problem with adding the ability to add into the code - as it adds it automatically. I've made a change so even if they put a full URL or a wikilink, it will fix any formatting. Long term, I think an instant search would work better - but it will take some time to implement.  Steven   Zhang  Help resolve disputes! 00:32, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Steven, while instant search would help, it doesn't deal with copy-paste filing (instant search doesn't spit search results if one pastes URL). — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 08:51, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * No, it wouldn't, but this edit does. Szhang (WMF) (talk) 09:53, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

"Agreement"
One of the requirements is that all involved parties must agree to mediation? What if you have a content dispute that has gone through many attempts (renaming an article) that there is a LARGE number of people on both sides and definitely not everyone will agree to push it further because one side has been very successful of affecting a "no consensus" outcome of each page move discussion and they would not want to take it to a venue like this... ( link to most recent discussion Talk:Genesis_creation_narrative ) So what does it mean in the agreement of involved parties as a requirement and if they don't all agree what is the next logical step or where to go from here? — raeky  t  14:24, 30 September 2012 (UTC)


 * "So what does it mean in the agreement of involved parties as a requirement and if they don't all agree what is the next logical step or where to go from here?"  It's simple. Just demonize the majority who keep disagreeing with you as a "gang of thugs", and hopefully get them ejected from the process.  That way, the only ones left will be the minority who agree with you.  Presto, instant "consensus". Hey, it worked in 1933... Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:44, 30 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Of course, you've uncovered my master plan! The issue started in what, 2010, with the initial disputes over including the word "myth" in the article, then eventually the article title got changed, then the renaming wars began and it got changed again, then the wars continued. Obviously this issue is a bit beyond me or just a couple people, there's a concentrated effort to keep it not named "myth" which is inconsistent with all other creation myths on the site... even the closer of this recent dispute acknowledges that. — raeky  t  14:53, 30 September 2012 (UTC)


 * To make it clear, what I was asking here was, that it's plainly obvious not everyone involved in that last renaming request will be willing to agree to mediation, and if that is a requirement or if just a few select people are necessary, or if there is a more appropriate venue to go for this case... — raeky  t  15:02, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Mediation Committee/Nominations/Thebirdlover
WikiProjects seem to collate MFDs which relate to their subject area, so on a similar note I wish to let any interested observers know that User:Thebirdlover has asked at MFD that his 2011 nomination page be deleted. AGK [•] 20:17, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Ethics
I have boldly added a set of non-binding ethic principles for dispute resolution practitioners at the Dispute Resolution policy. Your review would be welcomed. These are, by their terms, not applicable to this Committee or its members, unless adopted or ratified by us, but if they survive, I will propose on the policy talk page that they be modified and made applicable. Best regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 20:08, 16 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I suggest centralizing discussion about the new section at Wikipedia talk:Dispute resolution. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:51, 16 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Guy's right and I'm sorry I didn't say that. — TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 21:20, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

What if the other parties ignore the mediation?
What happens if the other parties simply ignore the mediation? How do we resolve the problem?--Lecen (talk) 01:22, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Outdated?
"This Wikipedia page is outdated. Please update this Wikipedia page to reflect recent events or newly available information. Please see the talk page for more information." There is no information on this page concerning the notice which appears on the Project Page. Can a knowledgeable person kindly update either this page or the other one? Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk)
 * Hello, could you provide a link to the page you see this message? I can't see it on the Mediation Committee page. Steven   Zhang  Help resolve disputes! 10:49, 17 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I believe he is referring to Requests for mediation/Guide. A redirect makes this the talk page for that page.


 * The real issue is that Template:Medcom menu has a link to a page that contains Template:Update. Like many pages on Wikipedia, the regulars here don't spend much trying different navigation links, but newbies do. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:23, 17 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't have time to re-write the Guide (it's quite complicated to write that in a newbie-friendly way), so it might be easier to simply remove the outdated material from the guide, or indeed remove any links to the guide until we mediators have the opportunity to update it. I certainly don't think it's critical to the effectiveness of the mediation process, but I do think it's important. Thoughts? AGK  [•] 15:30, 17 January 2013 (UTC)


 * The obvious first step is to remove the "Guide" link from Template:Medcom menu, but there are a bunch more listed at the "what links here" tool, including several redirects. I have a bit of time and could (if there is consensus to do so) go down the list and fix those links, but it was only listed as outdated on 23 August 2012‎ and the last substantive edit was on 29 October 2012‎. That tells me that it is likely to become non-obsolete at some point, and many of those links would have to be put back. The other question is where the links should go instead. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:49, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

New Chairperson
For the public record:


 * 1) Under the new mediation policy ratified in September, the Chairman must be reconfirmed every six months, starting with a first confirmation on or before 18 March 2013.
 * 2) We began this reconfirmation last week, and during it WGFinley decided not to ask for reconfirmation.
 * 3) As a result, we have appointed as our Chair.
 * 4) WGF will step down on 17 March 2013, at the end of his term as Chair, and Phil will take up an appointment as Chairperson from 18 March.
 * 5) During WGF's extended absence over the previous few months, I've been acting in his stead. I won't need to serve as acting Chair from 18 March, and (as Phil will probably be re-familiarising himself with the Chairman's duties in advance of his term) probably from before that date too.

Any comments, concerns, or requests for assistance and advice that would previously be sent to WGF or myself should go to PhilKnight, the new Chairperson, from 18 March. The usual references to the Chair's username will be updated on that day.

For the Mediation Committee, AGK  [•] 12:26, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry guys
Hi guys. I realise that, very shortly after being appointed to MedCom I became very inactive. While I am nominally active at the moment, I'll use this opportunity to step down from MedCom - even if I do maintain some level of activity, I cannot see that I'll have enough time to dedicate to the Committee for the foreseeable future. Thanks, ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 12:53, 27 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for letting us know. I've moved you to the list of inactive members and unsubscribed you from the mailing list. As an inactive member, you can come back as a mediator at any time and if you ever find you have the time and inclination to do so. Otherwise, best wishes, and it was great to work with you! AGK  [•] 22:43, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Input needed regarding new "conflict resolution" project (and process?)
Input is needed at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Conflict_Resolution to determine if a new project (and perhaps a new DR process) is needed. --Noleander (talk) 19:15, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think that a new DR process is needed, but of course, users can form new Wikiprojects at their discretion. — ΛΧΣ  21  20:29, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Older cases
Where can I look through some of the older cases? All I can find are the rejected cases and the pending ones.

I'm wondering what the success rate is and what kind of disputes are actually appropriate for the Committee. Volunteer Marek 12:26, 19 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi Marek, the archives are listed at Requests for mediation, and the most recent archive is Requests for mediation/Archive 27. PhilKnight (talk) 12:38, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Volunteer Marek 13:01, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * (I think the latest one is this one though right?) Volunteer  Marek 13:03, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the latest is indeed Archive 28. Not sure how I missed that. PhilKnight (talk) 23:31, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Thread regarding the Mediation Committee on Jimmy Wales's talk page.
Hi all,

I have spoken with some of you in the past regarding MedCom, and have spoken with Jimmy, as creator of MedCom, at Wikimania (and prior to that via email) and have started a discussion on his talk page. You can find it here. I would welcome your comments on this. Regards, Steven   Zhang  Help resolve disputes! 04:33, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Template deletion discussion notification
Please seeWikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/OpenNote. Debresser (talk) 08:21, 30 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Commented there. Thanks for the note, AGK  [•] 11:23, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Mediation Bot has failed to pickup request
removed - bot picked it up! Clubintheclub (talk) 18:02, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Privilege
Copied from User talk:TransporterMan. Please continue discussion below the following box. — TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 21:02, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I believe that the policy should be changed, so that statements made in a RfM are considered "made during mediation." Parties to a mediation make often make substantive statements in the RfM before a mediation case is accepted or rejected. (For example, ) If these statements are not considered "made during mediation" (and, hence, subject to privilege), it creates a disincentive to request mediation, and a disincentive to speak freely when doing so. (For reference, you might read this article on privilege in pleadings. ) Fearofreprisal (talk) 00:17, 13 November 2014 (UTC)


 * (1) The system is designed to discourage substantive discussion before a mediation request is accepted. This is because the only thing relevant in a request is whether the parties are willing or unwilling to participate in mediation. They should therefore not be saying anything, in the first place, that would require protection under the privilege. (2) The privilege is designed to make mediation easier; it is not designed to provide a page where speak without regard to the rules. (3) Nobody could be accused of misconduct for requesting mediation; that is not something that would happen on Wikipedia. Therefore, I would oppose changing the policy. AGK  [•] 20:46, 16 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I concur with AGK. Best regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 19:29, 17 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I want to be careful to avoid a conflict of interest here: AGK is an abitrator on an ArbCom case I've filed that's currently pending. I am not requesting that the Mediation Committee take any action with respect to the issues in that case. I'm only discussing mediation policy here, with an eye to clarifying and improving the process. With that in mind:
 * The issue of "substantive discussion" is a bit of a red herring, but it still bears examination. Reviewing all the pages that an editor would read in the process of filing an RfM, I can find no discouragement of substantive discussion before a mediation request is accepted or rejected. Further, in practice, mediators seem not to discourage such discussion. (For example, TransporterMan recently elicited substantive discussion before acceptance in an RfM I was involved with. See .)
 * The issue of actual or egregious misconduct during mediation is already addressed in the privilege policy.
 * The real issue is that which you say "would not" happen on WP: somebody being accused of misconduct for requesting mediation -- or, rather, the casting of aspersions against somebody for requesting mediation. It most certainly has happened. To avoid a conflict with ArbCom, I won't discuss case specifics here without AGK's approval. But I think the mere existence of the controversy is enough to justify re-examining whether the privilege policy should apply to RfMs, irrespective of whether they are accepted or rejected. Fearofreprisal (talk) 07:06, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Parties to United States Not Notified
The parties to United States have not been notified of the filing. If the filing party was supposed to do that, the instructions do not say so. If the bot was supposed to do that, either the bot is not working, or the instructions for filing are incomplete and the filing party did not properly format the case for the purpose. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:40, 18 December 2014 (UTC)


 * , see my note on the mediation page. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 16:25, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Bot failed to inform editors
For the request on America: Imagine a World Without Her, the bot did not in editors 22 to 25. Link to the request can be found here:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/America:_Imagine_the_World_Without_Her#Parties.27_agreement_to_mediation Casprings (talk) 00:43, 19 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I've fixed the page formatting which was confusing the bot. If it doesn't notify them now, I'll do it manually, probably tomorrow. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 18:23, 19 January 2015 (UTC) (Committee chairperson)


 * All notified. — TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 18:49, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Unclear on MedCom/ArbCom
As someone relatively novice to Wikipedia's governance, I'm confused about one point. Mediation is explicitly designated to solely deal with content issues, while arbitration solely designed for conduct issues. Yet both policies often reference each other (for example, the fact that an unsuccessful mediation may be referred to ArbCom). I understand how a set of facts could give rise to both a conduct and content dispute, but I think this page could explain under what circumstances a failed mediation could go to ArbCom. Am I missing something? Bro2baseball (talk) 18:24, 4 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Cases are ordinarily referred to ArbCom from MedCom only when there are conduct issues which are so severe that they prevent mediation from occurring. Mediators have a fairly powerful toolkit to try to control conduct issues during mediation, but sometimes that's just not enough. Such referrals are, however, pretty rare since most disputes which have conduct issues which are that intractable generally boil over to ArbCom before ever making it to MedCom. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 21:45, 4 May 2015 (UTC) (Chairperson, Mediation Committee)