Wikipedia talk:Mediation Committee/Policy/Ratification

Looks good. Prerequisites?
Looks fine. Good job. A few thoughts:
 * 1) The important thing is that the requirement for 100% participation has been dropped.
 * 2) I don't see Prerequisites  information.  The process defined at Dispute resolution contemplates a sequence moving from lightweight processes up to formal mediation.   Maybe add a sentence to the "Requesting" section saying:   ''"Before requesting mediation, first try the  more informal processes suggested by the Wikipedia dispute resolution process, such as dispute resolution noticeboard or request for comment."
 * 3) The policy states "Mediation is not a binding process.' Consensus can change so the result of mediation proceedings will never be permanently binding on an article or other content page."  That is okay, but the wording is a bit ambiguous and a disruptive editor could read this as permitting consensus to be rudely rejected the day following a decision.     I'm not suggesting that the policy explicitly set some duration, like 6 months; but maybe change to "Mediation is not a permanently binding process.   If consensus is achieved, the parties should generally respect the decision within the scope of the dispute for a short time; but the consensus does not apply to articles outside the scope of the mediation, nor does it last permanently. Consensus can change." 
 * --Noleander (talk) 12:56, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The prerequisites bit is elsewhere, so no real problem there.
 * I think private mediation should be allowed, although I don't know if our private wiki is really necessary. IRC and Skype have the potential to be really good tools, but setting that up is a nightmare. Does anyone have the link to our private wiki, anyway?
 * I also trimmed the part that needed trimming. Xavexgoem (talk) 16:22, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Question on the Prerequisites:  Is this new policy supposed to replace the existing Mediation_Committee/Policy?  If so, that existing policy has  a Preconditions section which is not yet represented in this draft policy.  Or am I misunderstanding the intention of this draft? --Noleander (talk) 20:27, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Noleander: The draft is intended to completely replace our current policy. I will add the prerequisites of mediation to the draft, though in a more succinct way than they are set down in the current policy. I will consider your comments about the "Not binding" principle, and make any necessary adjustments. Thank you very much for your comments, and please do provide any more you may think of. Regards, AGK  [•] 22:15, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay. Thanks for closing the loop.   Regarding the "not binding" - I understand that making the decision binding even for a few months is controversial, and I'm not suggesting that.  I was just trying to capture the sentiment after the completion of a successful mediation:  "A mediation just finished after N days of painstaking discussion, so let's try to live with the decision for a little while before challenging it again".  --Noleander (talk) 22:38, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I fully agree. I was determined to avoid implying there was any set time during which a mediation result is binding, and in my determination I suppose I went a little too far in the opposite direction. Easily fixed! AGK  [•] 00:26, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Some thoughts from Noleander: --Noleander (talk) 12:51, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅: Prerequisites section added and "Consensus can change" principle edited. Thanks again, and please let me know what you think or if you have comments about other parts of the draft. AGK  [•] 11:34, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Privileged section - "Privileged" will be an unknown concept to non-lawyers; so it may be clearer if it starts with a definition of the word "privileged" in this context. E.g.  "To encourage participants to speak candidly, WP has adopted the policy that statements made during mediation cannot be used against the participants in subsequent disciplinary proceedings.  This protection is called "privilege" ....  ".
 * Chairman - Because of WP's severe gender imbalance,  I would recommend using the gender-neutral Chairperson.
 * Decision-making section - I find this section confusing:  (1) The first sentence "The Mediation Committee aims .." seems to add no value; almost a non sequitur;  (2) The sentence "The Mediation Committee has no need to 'vote' on decisions in its cases, because its mediators do not adjudicate cases" is, I think, the essence of this section, and should the the first sentence of the section.  (3) After stating "has no need to vote" the reader then asks: "Okay, how are decisions made?" so a new sentence  be inserted which says "Decisions are made by consensus building ... blah blah".   (4) Sentences about "The mailing list exists ..." should probably be in a dedicated "Mailing list" subsection ... this appears to be not directly related to "Decision making";   (5) The mailing list sentences seem to sound a bit defensive.   Is there  some subtext about accusations of off-wiki secrecy?   If so, that should be more explicit, as in "The policy of the committee is to conduct most intra-committee discussions on-wiki, to support transparency, but occasionally some discussions will be via the mailing list ...".  Or maybe I'm just reading too much into it ;-)
 * Redundancy: Duplication between the Prerequisites section and the Requesting mediation section.  They both have a list of prerequisites; the Pre section has 4 (benefit WP; content; not behavior; tried lesser DR first); the Requesting section has four (majority; viewpoints represented; benefit WP; no other open).   Suggest that those two be consolidated: maybe make Prerequisites a subsection within Requesting Mediation, and collect all 6 (or 7?) prerequisites in a single list.
 * Pithy statement: A sentiment I've found useful in dispute resolution is:  "Consensus doesn't mean everyone likes the outcome, it just means they can live with it".  Some readers may find that pithy phrase very instructive.   If you find it useful, perhaps include it  near (or replace?)  the existing sentence " Parties should not expect a compromise that accords precisely with their own preferences: consensus requires compromise, and consensus is the objective of mediation."
 * That's all. I hope the above comments are not too nit-picky:  I'm presuming that the reader is someone unfamiliar with mediation, and also  somewhat inexperienced in WP, so clarity is top priority.
 * All of this looks good to me, so I'll add it in and offer my replies when I have a spare moment. (As for the prose that doesn't flow well, I intended to iron all that out in one final copy-edit; at this point, I'm interested in getting the substance and content written--style fixes can come later...) AGK  [•] 12:14, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. If you want me to help with any copy editing, let me know.  I'm pretty good an improving clarity/wording without altering the original intention of the text.   But I won't edit the draft without your permission.  --Noleander (talk) 12:33, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm predisposed to verbosity, and good copy-editors are invaluable, so please edit away. This draft is in my userspace, so I can do what I like :-). Shh, don't tell WGFinley. Thank you again for your invaluable thoughts. AGK  [•] 21:26, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Location of mediation
I don't have strong feelings on this, but I'd like to note that caucus-style mediation is the norm in litigation mediation. Here's how it works: There's generally an opening session with all parties present in which the mediator sets the methods and rules for mediation and allows each side the opportunity to make an opening statement. (It's not at all unusual for both sides to decline an opening statement.) The parties then move into separate private rooms. The mediator meets with each side, generally asks each to explain their position and to make a frank self-evaluation of the strengths and weaknesses of their position. Whatever a party tells the mediator is strictly confidential and is not to be told or implied to the other party. The mediator then shuttles back and forth communicating arguments and offers. Along the way, sometimes immediately after hearing a side's description and evaluation, sometimes as negotiations are under way, and sometimes both, the mediator will tell a party what he thinks of their case and their offers. (He will not tell a party what he thinks of the other party's case, of course, since that would break confidentiality, except to the extent that he does so on the basis of what is generally known about the case.) The mediator may also have a general session to close the mediation, whether successful or unsuccessful.

This system helps prevent the negotiation from breaking down due to conduct or emotions and also allows the mediator to make suggestions or engage in discussions with each party without the mediator becoming involved in arguments with the other party. It can also allow the mediator to criticize a party's case without appearing to support the other party and without educating the other party about arguments or critiques that they haven't yet thought of.

I don't know if this has ever been tried here, but I'd like to not see the possibility of its use be completely foreclosed. Best regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 15:52, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * This was being done at the beginning of the Yugoslavia naming conventions case, and I did it in my last (failed) mediation. It's a good way to control the discussion, which is essential.
 * I don't think we need the private wiki, though. E-mail should always be an option (heck, downtown cafes should be an option. It'd be a lot more successful). Xavexgoem (talk) 21:48, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Added it in loosely. Xavexgoem (talk) 22:09, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I think we need to have a more formal discussion about the propriety of any kind of off-site mediation. It comes down to whether you view mediation as like real-life mediation or as an alternative form of Wikipedia discussion. I believe it is the latter, and I know some other mediators do too, but I am open to being persuaded otherwise. AGK  [•] 12:13, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * What editors say on-wiki around other editors is not always what they're actually thinking or willing to say one-on-one to a mediator.
 * The privileged nature does not actually prevent anyone from viewing what's on-wiki, so editors are not always as honest on-wiki as they are in email when the only recipient is the mediator. I've gotten very frank emails that people wouldn't dare utter on-wiki, but that information has been invaluable. There's also times when you want to talk to an editor before they make an underhanded comment to "please, tone it down" without appearing to favor them (or at any rate avoiding irritatingly abstract discussions on tu quoque). We've been at this long enough to predict the tone of a reply, and having to constantly tamp down conduct is exhausting. Editors can also feel at a disadvantage when they make compromise offers first, predicting that either (a) the other editor isn't going to budge, and (b) the other editor is going to bargain away insultingly little.
 * I am opposed to discussion primarily happening outside Wikipedia. It's more of a tool than a process.
 * It's also possible that I've been doing this whole thing wrong the whole time, which is a real possibility. Xavexgoem (talk) 19:52, 21 August 2012 (UTC) I predict that I haven't used the word "tamp" in over 5 years.
 * Xav and others: Do we agree that the following are true?
 * Mediation proceedings must only be on Wikipedia: or Wikipedia talk: Requests for mediation;
 * Mediation proceedings must not be outwith these pages;
 * It's fine to e-mail the mediator, though the usual conditions apply.
 * If so, do we think the #Location of mediation section as it stands is accurate? I think it is. AGK  [•] 16:05, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I believe one of our current mediations started with the coordinator asking the parties to email them. I think RFM/Whatever should be the central discussion but it doesn't need to be the only discussion. --04:49, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Chair
Jokes and puns aside, what do we need a "chair" for? - jc37 22:57, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Membership and appointment
The draft looks good, I've just noticed something that looks a bit contradictory to me. In this section, it says

"Users may only be admitted to the committee with the consent of a majority (with no more than one oppose vote) of the mediators who choose to opine on their candidacy."

This seems contradictory to me. If twelve mediators opined on the candidacy, and ten supported, with two opposing, while a majority opined on the nomination, it would fail per the two oppose rule. I think that if the committee wishes to retain the two-oppose rule, then highlighting that more than one oppose will make a candidacy unsuccessful should be sufficient. Most MedCom nominations are clear cut, either they are successful across the board or very obviously unsuccessful. I think a majority vote would work better (and be more in line with the nomination standards elsewhere on the project) but that's just my personal opinion. Steven  Zhang  Help resolve disputes! 23:47, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * You need a majority vote and no more than 1 oppose. We might get a nom that gets only one support vote, which obviously isn't enough. Xavexgoem (talk) 04:29, 16 September 2012 (UTC)