Wikipedia talk:Mediation Committee/Policy/Old policy

Use of the Ulster Banner on Wikipedia
I'd be grateful if anyone has an opinion on whether this situation is mediatable. I previously posted this request here. The issue started on the Northern Ireland page over six months ago, over the use of the Ulster Banner or any other flag in the country infobox. It has now spread to the use of the Ulster Banner on templates and other pages. I'm not going to state my position as I want to present this neutrally. See Talk:Northern Ireland, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Flag Template, Talk:List of British flags, Template:British Isles, Template talk:UKFlags, Template talk:United Kingdom regions, Template talk:Country data Northern Ireland and probably have a dozen other places. This has resulted in numerous edit wars. Both sides have valid points and no outcome is foreseeable. Needless to say, this needs to be sorted out. It's causing far too much disruption to several articles. I'm unsure whether mediation will work, the issue has been discussed over and over. I'm told Arbcom will reject it as a content dispute, but I''m starting to think a enforced decision will be the only solution. Stu  ’Bout ye!  10:49, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

AMA mention
The mention of the AMA is no longer required and 'advocate' should probably link to the mainspace article. Addhoc 22:24, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, although there is is still a mention of the AMA remaining. Addhoc 15:07, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I have removed it. Thank you for bringing it to the Committee's attention.  Daniel  09:00, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Disambi link to Help:Merging and moving pages
editprotected
 * Done. – Luna Santin  (talk) 17:46, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment
First, I've edited the page to correct the wording referring to arbitration as a disciplinary process. Like mediation, arbitration's focus is on resolving disputes, not punishing the participants... so, I hope this was a relatively uncontroversial edit which the Mediators will have no objection to.

Second, I unprotected arbitration policy a few weeks ago. This page was protected a while back because it is the sister page to that - so now that reasoning doesn't hold up any more. :-) I hope the Mediators will consider unprotecting, since the history prior to protection doesn't suggest much disruption. Picaroon (t) 05:21, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Only one disputant?
A couple of points I would like to have copyedited:

The article contains the text: "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 ..." It's a minor point, but I recommend changing that to "one or more disputants", since there are often multiple editors "ganging up", and even multiple groups of different "fringe" viewpoints.

The section "People involved" contains: "Mediators listen to both sides, they attempt to help each party recognize and value the other party's position." This is a run-on sentence; the comma should be a semicolon, or a period. Actually, I would have changed it to "Mediators must listen to both sides, since they will attempt to..."

Also, I really think point #2 in "What mediation is not" should work in a slightly better explanation, perhaps text to the effect that "The sole purpose of mediation is to assist editors in a sincere effort to achieve consensus; attempting to use mediation to "prepare for" arbitration (or other action) is considered devious. For this reason, the communications that take place during..."

Eaglizard 13:16, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Interwiki link for Farsi page
Please add interwiki link for current Farsi page of this policy to prevent users from creating duplicate copys in Farsi wikipedia. The link should point to fa:ویکی‌پدیا:میانجی‌گری. Ammar (talk) 20:39, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Done. --- RockMFR 22:50, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Nutshell
Suggest removing "among the Mediation Committee members" from the Nutshell. All policies derive authority from either the community or the Wikimedia Foundation, and this is no exception. The community has the authority to change the mediation policy including authority to abolish the Mediation Committee if it wishes. The Mediation Committee is respected and trusted not only to mediate disputes but to provide the community with its expertise and wise guidance on mediation policy. But this is a matter of respect, trust, and wisdom, not of right. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 22:48, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Template for closed mediation
During the mediation of the cold fusion article, its talk page had a header saying that the article was the subjet of mediation. Now, that the mediation is closed, it would be great to have a header that says "this article was the subject of a mediation", with a pointer to the discussion page. This way, new editors would be made aware of the past mediation. Who could take care of that ? Any thoughts ? Pcarbonn (talk) 16:12, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

How long to medcom members serve?
Just curious, really. I am actually writing a paper on Wikipedia and need this bit of information for the paper. Can the answer also be posted on my talk page? Thanks so much! Cheers, Bstone (talk) 17:43, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * As far as I know, MedCom members don't have a fixed term of service. MedCom chairs probably do, but the members themself, I'm not so sure they have an expiry. Steve Crossin   (contact)  17:45, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Regarding mediation...
I need advice on the titling and inclusion of a number of "List of..." pages. there's no dispute; all editors involved with the pages (in its particular wikiproject) would welcome another more experienced editor. Is this Mediation? Or should i be asking elsewhere? --SteelersFanUK06  ReplyOnMine!   01:05, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

How long do accepted but unassigned cases remain on task list?
I understand that once a request for mediation is accepted, it becomes an unassigned case, and members of the Mediation Committee may volunteer (or not) to take the case. If no members of the Committee volunteer to take a case, will it remain listed as an unassigned case indefinitely, or will it expire after a certain period of time? As a first-time party to a mediation case, I would find such info to be a helpful addition to this article. Apologies if this info is provided and I overlooked it. Thanks. Benccc (talk) 17:45, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Proposal
What are people's views on renaming mediation facilitation, or adding facilitation to the existing mediation service? To explain the difference, facilitation can be used before there is a dispute, and a skilled facilitator can help avoid conflict. I started a thread here if anyone is interested in discussing the concept and how it could work in Wikipedia. Jayen 466 11:49, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Proposed move: &rarr;Wikipedia:Mediation Committee/Policy
I propose moving this page to Mediation Committee/Policy. The policy is exclusively relating to the Mediation Committee; this proposed pagemove would allow Wikipedia:Mediation to be left open for general issues of mediation—pertaining to both informal and formal mediation—and allow the MedCom to keep the policy which governs their operations within its own space.

Any obvious issues with this?

AGK 19:52, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Category discussion
This page might get a new policy category; the discussion is at WP:VPP. - Dank (push to talk) 23:55, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Question on appeals
What is the procedure for appealing this decision [], which seems to have been made rather hastily (less than 48 hours after discussion was opened) and does not appear to represent the consensus of the listed comments? Thanks. Smatprt (talk) 20:14, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Should editors be compelled to engage in private mediation
(This post was prompted by the fact that I am being pressurised to engage in off-wiki communication regarding mediation on the Monty Hall problem. Please note that the reasons that I am giving below why off-wiki mediation may no suit everyone are not necessarily the reasons that I do not wish to do this.  There is also no suggestion whatever that anyone, including the mediator, is intending to engage in any of the un-wikipedian activities described below or that they would ever consider doing so.)

Please note that this issue is no longer directly relevant to me as Andrevan has withdrawn as mediator for the Monty Hall problem. I am pursuing the matter here because I believe that it is a fundamental right of editors on WP not to be pressurised into any form of off-wiki contact. Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:18, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

In the section on private mediation, the following (abridged here) reasons are given as to why parties might request private mediation:
 * As the channel for communication, the mediator may rephrase harsh comments...
 * Mediation, when held publicly, may be impaired by the involvement of well-meaning-but-uninformed users with little understanding of the dispute...
 * When two users are in conflict, they often say things that they strongly regret at a later point in time.
 * Parties are often justifiably concerned that information revealed in mediation may later be used outside of the mediation process to their disadvantage.

I can see that these may be valid reasons for editors to request private mediation but should editors be forced to use off-wiki communication if they do not wish to? The benefits of private mediation are clear but ther are also many reasons why some editors may not want to engage in private mediation

Technical
Editors involved in a dispute must clearly have the technical capability to discuss mediation on WP, however they may not have the capability to use other means of communication. Not everyone know how to install Skype  Some people may be concerned about viruses, trojans and other malware when installing new software on their PC. Some people may not have the available resources to install new software. Some may need permission from someone else to do so.

In many cases editors may not want to state explicitly that they do not know how to install Skype or are are not allowed to do so on the computer they are using for WP.

Some forms of off-wiki conversation may incur costs.

Style and personal preference
Some editors may wish to take their time to consider what to say before responding to questions. They may feel intimidated by being expected to give quick answers to questions on which they feel they may be challenged.

Some editors may edit sporadically for a variety of, possibly personal, reasons and may not want, or even be able, to allocate a significant period of time for a conversation. Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:21, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Some editors may have disabilities which prevent them from engaging in real-time conversation. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:10, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Audit trail
One advantage of WP is that everything said is recorded and timed so that disputes about what exactly what was said, and by whom cannot arise. In private mediation there is always the possibility that one party may make false claims that the other was uncivil or made a particular statement that they did not, in fact, make.

Even in cases such as IRC, where I understand a logging mechanism is available, it still requires data to be manually cut and pasted into a WP page for a dispute to be resolved, thus there is no independent record.

Privacy and Safety
Some editors wish to remain anonymous and WP allows them to do this. Some other media may allow anonymity if used properly but in cases of use by non-experts unintended personal information may be revealed. Not every WP editor is a computer geek.

Some editors may fear that inappropriate remarks or suggestions may be made in a private conversation and indeed these things may actually occur.

There is no enforcement of standards of civility in private conversations.

The encyclopedia that anyone can edit
This is the most fundamental objection to forcing people to engage in off-wiki editing. WP allows all types of people, the timid and the bold, native English speakers and those who speak English not as their first language, the expert and the non-expert to edit cooperatively, without fear or intimidation. The whole point of WP is that anyone can start editing with just a mouse click.

Conclusion
I believe that no editor should be forced to engage in off-wiki mediation or should suffer any penalty or disadvantage for not doing so. I believe that editors should not be required to give reasons for not wanting to go-off wiki, they should be allowed to politely decline and continue mediation through WP pages if they wish. What do others think? Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:47, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Response by Andrevan
The reason why I want to engage in off-wiki mediation is simple: the wiki is ill-suited to a complex conversation. It has nothing to do with privacy or confidentiality. Edit conflicts prevent natural conversation. Mediation requires a delicate touch and a command of conversation which is impossible when verbose editors churn out multi-page responses and ignore others' points and questions. Limiting conversation to the wiki format is just plain frustrating for someone trying to mediate. Andrevan@ 18:25, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I fully understand the points that you make but I have suggested a way round the problems. If we set up a page just for the purpose of a conversation between me you and me then we can have a reasonable natural conversation.  Other editors can be clearly told the purpose of the special page and that their comments will be immediately deleted. I have already set up this page but if you feel it would be easier to enforce the two editor restriction in your user space that is fine with me.  I see little difference between my format, with two editors active at the same time, and some form of chat format.  It will work in just the same way, you say something, I reply, you respond...  We just need to arrange a time.


 * Now that I have addressed your concerns, perhaps you would consider mine. I think it is a fundamental principle that editors should be able to decline off-wiki mediation, or off-wiki discussion of any kind, without penalty or disadvantage, and without giving any reason.  My reasons for not wanting to engage in off-wiki conversation are undoubtedly included in those given above but I do not wish to specify exactly what they are. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:10, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Andrevan, If I read your concerns correctly, you would like a mediation to proceed in a way that allows for parties to express themselves openly and be heard. Have I got that right? If so, I would just say that such an objective can be achieved in the usual mediation format. When the pre-mediation discussion has been fractious, and particularly when there have been personal attacks, I find it useful to have participants agree to some behavioural guidelines. Sometimes the mediator has to be more "hands on" to ensure a peaceful and orderly discussion. Sunray (talk) 20:47, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

What next?
Regarding compulsory private mediation I have tried to discuss the subject here and got no response and been bold and made a change to the page only to find it reverted without discussion.

This is a very important issue for WP which deserves a proper discussion. What do I do next? Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:43, 18 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Get some mediators to comment on your proposal, rather than assume that there is agreement and then be surprised when you are told there is not. The large grey box at the top of the policy page renders any comment I might make here redundant. I can ping the committee mailing list for you, if you want some additional people to comment. As a more general point, I would be opposed to codifying this aspect of mediation in the committee's policy page; the mediator of a case has wide discretion conferred on him to decide how to respond to a party's refusal to participate in mediation via a particular forum. And it seems to me that it is inappropriate for you to modify the policy which governs the use of Skype/IRC/e-mail in the Monty Hall problem mediation; modification after the fact is wrong and won't help you much. AGK   16:04, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Please assume some good faith on my part. Andrevan has withdrawn as mediator for the MHP so the issue is no longer directly relevant to me.  In fact I probably would have done better to have engaged in private mediation with Andrevan regarding the MHP but chose not to do so on an important matter of principle which I am now pursuing.


 * Regarding mediators' comments on my proposal, I would welcome them. I believe that this subject is fundamental to the whole concept of WP.  Please read my comments and consider them in their own right rather than assuming this is all some dirty trick to get my own way on the MHP page. Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:14, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Please somebody say something
My comments and suggestions regarding a fundamental principle of Wikipedia have been on this page for over a month now and not one editor, mediator or otherwise, has commented on the substance of what I say. I am not sure what the next step in resolving this should be. I am sure that ignoring an editor completely is not the right way forward. I will try contancting the mediators individually. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:19, 20 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the delay. I've posted this message to the committee mailing list:

from	AGK  time	Sent at 12:52 (GMT+01:00). to	Mediation-en-l  date	20 June 2010 12:52 subject	Holding mediation in private/off-wiki

All,

Martin Hogbin is posting enquiries[1] concerning the staging of formal mediation in an off-wiki forum (a topic of recent debate and of interest to the current case, the Monty Hall problem). His intention is to alter the mediation policy[2] such that states that parties to an RFM are permitted to object to holding mediation anywhere except on-wiki.

I agree with Martin, though I did revert his recent changes to the policy page (as such a substantial change most definitely needs wider agreement). But I am concerned both that others may not agree and that the changes he recommends may have wider negative implications on future and current cases.

Comments on the policy talk page[1] from active and inactive mediators would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks, Anthony

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WT:MC/P#Somebody_say_something [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:MC/P
 * I trust this is to your satisfaction for now. Regards, AGK   11:59, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment by PhilKnight
Regarding this edit - I like the idea, but care needs to be taken with the wording in order to avoid the implication that the MedCom policy page limits ArbCom's authority. PhilKnight (talk) 12:48, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't like the idea that a party can simply say "No." to a suggestion of off-wiki mediation and stop the idea dead in its tracks. Discussion ought to be required, as with all decisions we take on Wikipedia. Alternative:
 * AGK  20:36, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * AGK  20:36, 20 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I was not suggesting that an editor should have the right to prevent others in the same dispute from engaging in private mediation. I was suggesting that any editor should have the right to decline private mediation between themselves and the mediator, without giving any reason and without being put at any disadvantage in the mediation process. My wording said this clearly and simply. Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:51, 20 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Your version was far more succinct and well-written than was mine. The qualm I have with it is "…will not suffer any penalty or disadvantage if they choose not to do so". Otherwise, as I've said elsewhere, I agree with your suggested amendment, but I do also see merits to Phil's point and was trying to remedy his concerns. AGK   20:55, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe it should say intentional disadvantage or penalty or something like that. If an editor does decline private mediation and suffers is no intentional penalty or disadvantage it is still possible that they may feel at a disadvantage due to the fact that others have a more direct line to the mediator.  Short of allowing one editor to veto private mediation, which might be going too far, there is not much that can be done about that.  I think it is important that editors should not have to give a reason for declining private mediation and that the mediator should not deliberately put a declining editor at a disadvantage because of their wishes.  Maybe undue disadvantage or unnecessary disadvantage? Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:10, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Or how about, ....the mediator must not discriminate against any editor who chooses not to do so? Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:32, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Kmhkmh
The added bullet point is fine. But actually even without it, I'd assume that it is the implicit assumption anyhow. I.e. as long as there is no explicit guideline requiring editors to participate in a discussion in some media outside of WP, they are obviously not required to do so.
 * As you know, I was put under some pressure to use IRC. Some editors might have found this intimidating. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:27, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Well some people (understandably) not happy that you declined even just to try a live conversation. While they were unhappy with the situation and would have liked you to participate, I'm not aware of any body requiring you t join. I didn't see any pressure being much d different from the constant pressure the article and discussion is under for over a year now.--Kmhkmh (talk) 19:44, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * This is just the kind of discussion that I am trying to avoid. Any editor should be able to decline private mediation without giving a reason. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:15, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

The problem that I have however is how issue gets framed here and somewhat misrepresented. Public and private is not the same as on-wp and off-wp. For example irc discussion can be facilitated to be as public as WP and none of Martin's above objections (other than the personal preference/style) are actually correct as far as the options of an irc discussion are concerned. You can set up an irc discussion to be open to everyone, you can be as anonymous as on WP, you can log the whole conversation and post it on an associated WP page afterwards. In short the concerns regarding audit trail, safety and security are not really justified as far as irc is concerned. Skype (Audio/Video) or email might be another matter of course.--Kmhkmh (talk) 17:17, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The problem with IRC, which I admit I have never used, is that although I do not doubt that IRC has all the features that you say, these is not all automatic, which is the case on WP. A new user to IRC might not know how to tell if they were involved in a one to one conversation or not, for example or how to tell if the conversation was being logged. In any case, the transfer of a log file to WP is manual and could be subject to modification.
 * Yes, but in the context of the MHP mediation I have difficulties to see why you were not willing to give it a try. Where's the problem with simply trying it out to get familiar with functionality (even without jumping directly into the MHP mediation). What frustrated people the mediation is that you categorically said now, without even being willing to inform yourself about the suggested tool. Nobody wants to force you to use it, but you can't blame others if they consider your behaviour as somewhat unreasonable or inexplicable. As far as the log file is concerned, every client can log conversation individually, so there is no option for manipulation. Moreover I don't quite get such manipulation fears in the given context. Did you serious expect the mediator to conspire with other editors to forge logfiles? Please ....--Kmhkmh (talk) 19:44, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Kmhkmh, you are completely missing the point. The mediation regarding the MHP has ceased, Andrevan has withdrawn as mediator. I am talking here about a matter of principle concerning many classes of editor who would be disadvantaged by being pressurised into engaging in private or off-wiki mediation.  Suggesting that mediators might 'consider your behaviour as somewhat unreasonable or inexplicable' if you were not willing to engage in private mediation might well intimidate some editors. Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:11, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm aware that this particular mediation has ended. Nevertheless it is the mediation that led to your request and yes i have an issue with you misrepresenting that mediation here and the irc tool in general. Again nobody is forcing you or anybody else to use it, but there is no reason to misrepresent its capabilities or to discourage its use.--Kmhkmh (talk) 21:11, 20 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The basic point is this. WP is the encyclopedia anyone can edit.  Those that choose to do so are clearly comfortable with the way editors interact on WP. For many reasons, some of which I have given, some editors may not be comfortable with other media or the method of interaction involved in using them.  It seems better to take this as a general and simply understood principle than to try to deal with every possible problem and alternative medium individually. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:27, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The is no disagreement, that WP is the primary medium for WP. However there is no reason, why WP editors shouldn't use other media as well to further their collaboration. In particular the use of irc by WP editors is almost as old as WP itself. WP has several permanent public irc channels on freenode and many portals have regularly temporary irc channels for coordination and discussion. In short the point is we should not mischaracterize important tools and their use/functionality for WP.--Kmhkmh (talk) 19:44, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Editors may agree to use other forms of communication for discussion if they wish, although I would still suggest that this is done with some caution. What I am objecting to is pressure being put on any editor to do so against their wishes.
 * If you need me to explain some of the many ways this could lead to problems, from the serious to the mildly embarrassing, I would be happy to do so.  Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:11, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * What you are objecting to was never policy and was suggested by nobody, so please don't create the impression of that being otherwise.--Kmhkmh (talk) 21:11, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * There was some pressure by yourself and others for me to engage in private mediation. It is all there in the record. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:17, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed it is on record, nobody suggested a "private" mediation, but a public one in irc. You confuse "pressure" with a mere difference of opinions about the best way to proceed. Nobody was "pressured" into anything here.--Kmhkmh (talk) 23:39, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I did not succumb to the pressure but others might have done; it is those that I am trying to protect. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:21, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The point was, that you cannot simply read a difference in opinion about the best to proceed in a particular mediation as being "unfairly pressured". Because if you apply such an interpretation, one might claim on equal grounds, that you've "unfairly pressured" the mediator ot of the mediation (=you did not agree with his approach) or that you "unfairly pressure" the MHP article for over a year now (=you don't agree with the current featured version). Such differences in opinion are unavoidable and in doubt part of any mediation. However from such differences in opinion it does not follow that somebody would be required to do something (like using off-wiki media). That was already the case with the former guideline, but explicitly stating it as in the current guideline is fine as well.--Kmhkmh (talk) 16:18, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Sunray
I have no problem with the proposed addition clarifying that editors are not required to engage in private mediation. However, I agree with others who have commented that such an addition is likely unnecessary. There is nothing in the current policy to compel an editor to engage in private mediation. The policy states: "mediation can be held in private." "Can" is permissive: that is, it allows for private mediation rather than requires it. Sunray (talk) 20:18, 20 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The point is that editors may be put under pressure to engage in private mediation, as happened in my case. Even if they are not put under pressure, they may (rightly or wrongly) feel that they will lose the opportunity to state their case effectively if they do not engage in private mediation.


 * Some editors may not wish to discuss the reasons that they do not wish to engage in private mediation, either because this might embarrass them or because it might reveal information about them that they do not wish to be made public. If some editors do give reasons and others do not, again, certain conclusions about the editors who decline might be improperly drawn.  Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:42, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Good policies are usually written so as to guide rather than regulate. IMO policy should not attempt to prevent behavior that is completely normal and natural. People who want something often resort to pressure to convince others. The best way of dealing with this is usually not by trying to regulate it through policy. If we were to do so, WP policies would extend to the horizon and beyond. Sunray (talk) 22:46, 20 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I believe that in this case, the position needs to be made simple and clear, as I see it as a fundamental right of any editor not to be discriminated against because they do not want to engage in off-wiki communication. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:30, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment by AGK
I've made the following change:

This seems to accurately summarise the status quo without realising Phil Knight's concerns (expressed at ). I don't think it's necessary to say that parties may not be penalised for refusing to participate in off-wiki mediation. AGK  13:42, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * This still confuses confidential with off-wiki. What Martin wants is, that people having agreed to a (on-wiki) mediation may decline the use any off-wiki media (regardless whether it is confidential/private or not).--Kmhkmh (talk) 15:35, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * That is quite right. I have reverted the added suggestion because there is no more consensus for that than there was for my addition, which remained untouched for a month.  I think it is essential to state that an editor should not be penalised for not engaging in off-wiki mediation and that they should not have to give a reason for this.  If anyone does not understand why I want to take a relatively strong line on this I would be glad to explain to them. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:16, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * As I said above, I am not persuaded that we need to change the policy because one person felt pressured. No one is required to participate in any mediation and the policy is clear about that. I vote that we leave the policy as is. Sunray (talk) 17:34, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Please understand that this is not about my experience. That just brought to light what should be a fundamental right of any editor on WP, to discuss their differences on-wiki. This goes far beyond expedient mediation. Maybe I have to give some example to explain what I mean. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:40, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

The policy makes it abundantly clear that mediation is voluntary: I strongly believe that good policy is not made with respect to single incidents. If this were truly a problem, we would likely have had other similar cases. I think we should just leave this now. Sunray (talk) 18:06, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * ... "mediators are facilitators of voluntary discussion..."
 * "Any disputant may refuse or withdraw from the mediation process at their will. No party is required to participate in mediation..."
 * ... "mediation can be held in private..."
 * I agree.--Kmhkmh (talk) 18:36, 21 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I've restored AGK's version with 'confidential' replaced by 'off-wiki' per Kmhkmh's earlier comment. Also, I somehow managed to mark this edit as minor - sorry about that. PhilKnight (talk) 19:30, 21 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I am not sure why you find it so hard to understand my point. Of course anyone can withdraw from mediation.  There is nothing you can do to stop that.  The point is what happens when somebody declines private mediation. Are they still allowed to be part of the mediation process? The existing policy does not make that clear.


 * To put this another way. If I am one of the many classes of people who might have a problem with private mediation that I describe above and I decline private mediation, am I then allowed to fully participate in the mediation process? Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:48, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * What exactly to you want to mediate if you can't even agree on the media with your conflicting parties? If that scenario really occurs, the mediation has failed and that's it. It is a mediation not an arbitration.--Kmhkmh (talk) 00:09, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * This was simple a question for Phil. Phil, is it you understanding that an editor who declines private mediation can then be excluded from the mediation process? Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:15, 22 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I see that 'off-wiki mediation' is acceptable, but 'confidential mediation' is not. Why is that precisely? The two phrases are synonymous. I'm wasting no more time on this discussion, and I don't think that it would be a productive use of the other mediators' time if they were not to do likewise. AGK   13:22, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * As I tried to point out above, they are not synonymous. You can have public and transparent off-wiki discussions (for instance with a particular setup/use of irc) and Martin's issue is primarily not with public versus confidential but with on-wiki versus off-wiki.--Kmhkmh (talk) 13:30, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, I understand the distinction now. In virtually all cases off-wiki mediation would also be private mediation. In the case that prompted Martin to pursue this line of enquiry, Andrevan was recommending e-mail discussion; that, for instance, would have been both off-wiki and private—and thus confidential. AGK   13:34, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Well in my understanding Andrevan originally proposed a live discussion (via skype or irc), since he felt having the parties talking directly "live" to each other might help. On irc at least such a live conversation could have been setup up to be confidential or public (public channel,logging by the participants, posting the log afterwards on WP). However Martin was not comfortable with any off-wiki media regardless whether potential anonymity/security/confidentiality/transparency can be addressed or not (in irc they could have been addressed, in skype probably not). Martin seems to be concerned that the use of off-wiki media might exclude from parties a mediation they are interested in or "pressure" them out of it and hence suffer a "disadvantage". However as I tried to point out to him further up such a notion seems to misunderstand the nature and goal of a mediation and somewhat confusing it with an arbitration.--Kmhkmh (talk) 14:13, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Opposition to off-wiki mediation can be on the grounds that the discussion is not taking place on Wikipedia (as Martin seems to be, and whom I agree with: most decision-making should take place on-wiki insofar as possible, though admittedly peripheral discussions can often be helpful). Or it can be on the grounds that the mediation is taking place in secret: decision making should be open to the community for scrutiny and comment. Or it can be on the grounds that the mediation is taking place via off-wiki media, which are perceivably insecure and not subject to the methods of governance that on-wiki discussions are. The "confidential nature of mediation" section seems to lump all these together. That may not be the best approach. I've set up a draft at Mediation Committee/Policy/Draft to see if there are better ways of outlining the Committee's policy on off-wiki mediation. AGK   14:59, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * the draft looks good to me.--Kmhkmh (talk) 15:26, 22 June 2010 (UTC)


 * AKG, thanks for your continued understanding and support. Let me give some example to explain what I am getting at:


 * I am a disabled person who can only type very slowly and who has a serious speech impediment. I enjoy editing WP and do so without anyone knowing about my disabilities.  In mediation, I am asked to take part in an off-wiki conversation by Skype or IRC.  I cannot do either, certainly without revealing my disabilities, which I do not want to do.  I have no objection to others being involved in private mediation but I would like to continue to be involved via a wiki, if absolutely necessary a private one. My only other alternatives are to withdraw from mediation or reveal my disabilities to the world of WP.


 * I am an elderly editor whose son sets up my computer when he visits me. He has told be not to install or use any programs without his approval in order to protect me from malware.  He tells me editing WP is quite safe.  I do not have Skype or IRC set up and cannot afford to phone the USA from the UK. I do not want the world to know all this.  Again I have the same alternatives as above.


 * I am a quiet person who likes to consider what I say carefully before speaking (maybe we need more people like this). I enjoy editing WP because it lets me edit and debate in a way that suits me.  I cannot face a one-to-one conversation and fear that I would look foolish in one.


 * Mediators also might care to take note of some of the child protection issues that have affected Facebook. I would not want to be on the receiving end of an investigation regarding alleged improper suggestions made to a young teenager that I had pressurised into a private off-wiki conversation.  Wiki is an inherently safe medium.


 * I could go on but I hope you get the picture now. It is like the right to silence it may be troublesome, and the reasons supporting it may not always be obvious but it prevents the vulnerable from being disadvantaged.  I think there is a fundamental right to stay on wiki without disadvantage and without giving a reason. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:02, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I guess you all have more important things to do
I guess you all have more important things to do than discuss fundamental issues of accessibility and child protection. I am dismayed that the mediation committee do not seem able to publicly discuss such an important and fundamental topic.

Maybe we should change our strap line to: Wikipedia - the free encyclopedia that any young, adult, confident, able-bodied, assertive, well-off, trusting, computer geek with plenty of free time on their hands can edit on a computer that they control.

Perhaps somebody could tell me the next stage in dispute resolution. Mediation does not look a good option. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:51, 25 June 2010 (UTC)


 * We're all volunteers, so you're damn right that we have more important things to do. Nobody is compelled to participate in mediation. For my part, I've been on vacation, and unable to respond to your comments here. I'm not sure precisely what you want from us. The policy now states that any party is free to decline to participate in off-wiki mediation, and has done for a while (almost since the start of these discussions, I think). What point are you now trying to make? If you're clear about what you want, we can be clear about the committee's position thereon. Regards, AGK   16:11, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The point I was trying to make was the point that you have just agreed with below. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:38, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Clarification added
I have added some clarification to the last bullet point on private mediation. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:23, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I support your change. AGK   16:11, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I am still somewhat surprised by the lack of understanding of the issues shown by some members of the mediation committee, but I think the policy now addresses these so I will drop the subject.  Happy mediating. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:30, 27 July 2010 (UTC)


 * There definitely was some confusion at the outset. For instance, at first I thought your qualm was with confidential mediation (that is, non-public, and therefore not subject to community scrutiny) and not with off-wiki mediation (and therefore through potentially insecure media). Misunderstanding, rather than ignorance, seemed to have been the obstacle. Regards, AGK   16:33, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Duplication on Project page
I was reading the MedCom/Policy page in preparation for an upcoming mediation in which I am involved. When doing so, I noticed that in the Mediators section, there are two sub-sections for "Emeriti mediators" (currently 4.5 and 4.6). The content of the first sub-section is substantially the same as that in the second (although in different words), but the second section is more extensive, and contains an anchor. Since I'm (obviously) not a member of the Committee, I don't want to make the change myself (just like I wouldn't make a change to the page of a WikiProject I'm not involved in), but I thought y'all might want to know and possibly consolidate those two sections. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:55, 5 May 2011 (UTC)


 * It's because the introductory text was added to WP:MC/E, whereas that page previously just contained a list of emeriti mediators—and was thus transcluded onto the policy, resulting in the duplication. Thanks for catching that! AGK  [&bull; ] 22:09, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Pre-Conditions
Should "substantial, successful discussion" not be "substantial, unsuccessful discussion"?--Flexdream (talk) 23:22, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅: It should probably be "substantial previous discussion", so I've changed it to that. Thanks! AGK  [&bull; ] 12:57, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

The privileged nature of mediation
I am a volunteer informal Mediator at WP:DRN. Every so often, someone makes an argument in favor of them being allowed to use communications from a prior MedCom case as evidence at DRN. We, of course, say no and link to this policy.

If possible, I would like to also respond with something like "you were told what the policy was". Would that be an accurate statement? Also, it would be useful to have some guidance for dealing with suspected violations; where to report them, whether to delete clear-cut violations, etc. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 21:40, 15 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, editors are told beforehand regarding that policy. So you're right in saying that. Lord Roem (talk) 22:33, 15 June 2012 (UTC)