Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Shatt al-Arab (Arvand Rud)

Daniel, you state that you “strongly recommend private mediation for this RfM”, but fail to explain why. For the education of those of us not intimately experienced in this process, can you explain under what circumstances “private” mediation is preferable to “official”? For instance, private mediation would seem to me to be preferable when a “one-off” issue is being addressed; however, this is not the case in this instance. It is one that has broader implications for Wikipedia in that the problem has arisen before (e.g., Gdansk vs. Danzig, Kaliningrad vs. Königsberg, etc.), is ongoing elsewhere (e.g., Persian Gulf vs. Arabian Gulf), and no doubt will continue to do so in the future. A resolution through the “official” process would seem to offer a stronger precedent for putting such issues to rest than a “one-off” private mediation. Askari Mark (Talk) 20:01, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Mediation done in private (see below for details) is as much "official" as mediation conducted on Wikipedia itself. It is conducted with the endorsement the Mediation Committee, by a member of the Committee as promoted though our nomination structure (see WP:MC), and there is no other difference between public and private except that it is read-only for the parties only.
 * Private mediation is done on the Mediation Committee's own private Wiki, commonly referred to as "MedComWiki". It's basically the same as Wikipedia, and has the same setup, yet only you guys can see the proceedings (it's locked for viewing for only the parties and the mediator). The reason I'm recommending private mediation was that it was suggested (and strongly supported) on our mailing list, due to the combination of a large number of parties, and these parties being experienced contributors in many cases. We deliberately use private mediation so that non-involved editors will not being able to see the proceedings, and for other advantageous reasons as noted at WP:M. It also prevents drive-by sockpuppets and other disruptive single-purpose accounts from being annoying. In addition, as it has been identified that there is "prior history" that the Committee is aware of between two or more of the parties, we wish to protect ourselves all parties from this mediation being used in any future, potential arbitrations, as per our policy.
 * Mediation does not issue "binding results", either for a specific article or a topic in general. At the conclusion of this mediation, there will be a simple summary added to the main RfM page, agreed to by all the parties, detailing what the result of the mediation was, and what the agreed comprimise is.
 * What you have to do to get an account so you can take part as a party? Simple :) Click this email link, and send me an email. Include "Shatt al-Arab (Arvand Rud)" somewhere in the subject, e.g. "Private wiki account request for Shatt al-Arab (Arvand Rud)", and I'll email you back with your account details (username and password) on MedComWiki within the next couple of days (ie. when all the parties have emailed me), so you can get access to the mediation pages, and we can all get started.  Daniel  07:39, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Daniel, that's much clearer than anything I've read in the articles on mediation (which really do need a good working over for the non-cognoscenti). I'm still unclear, though, on why there are two mediation venues – both of which appear to be "private mediation" – and how to choose which one to first go to should (or perhaps when) I decide to take an issue that way. Appreciatively, Askari Mark (Talk) 16:21, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * One is really private (ie. we control who can see it, and prevent it being used as 'evidence' against a party), the other is quasi-private (ie. we can't control who can see it, but we theoretically can prevent it being used as 'evidence' against a party [this hasn't been tested in a while). It's basically our safety-net. Cheers,  Daniel  07:30, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * So, if I understand more correctly, private mediation is the preferred venue when the issue – or perhaps an aspect of a participant's behavior – is more likely to (or expected to) eventually end up at ArbCom? Askari Mark (Talk) 18:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * When the dispute is more complex (ie. prior history etc.) and may involve a future RfC or RfAr, yes.  Daniel  06:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)