Wikipedia talk:Mediation Committee/Archive/8

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

See the village pump here for a proposal. Please comment and revise! Geoff Plourde (talk) 07:18, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

The graphical template on the project page was not functioning (it displayed an error message). I went to the template page Template:MedComChair and fixed it. The period had been specified to end at a time earlier than the present date, but the later specification for Mr. Postlethwaite's tenure had gone up to present, causing a functional error. I have adjusted the overall period specification to run until December 31st of this year. It will need to be adjusted again at that time. —Matheuler 21:53, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah, that was the problem. I couldn't for the life of my figure out why it was misbehaving. Thank you for the assistance, Matheuler. AGK 10:43, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

This notice is to formally announce that I will be retiring from the role as chair of the Mediation Committee, effective from 10 January 2010. After discussion on the committee's mailing list, it has been decided that the position of chair will be divided between two users; Seddon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Xavexgoem (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).

May I take this opportunity to thank members of the committee for their hard work and cooperation this year. May I also thank all members of the community who have used the mediation process over the last year - without your good faith in entrusting us to help solve your disputes there would be no Mediation Committee and I've enjoyed interacting with each and every one of you. It's been an absolute pleasure to serve as the chair of the committee over the last year and in many ways I'm sad that I'm leaving the role. That said, I'm looking forward to the new found enthusiasm that Seddom and Xavexgoem will no doubt bring. I wish them both the best of luck.

Regards,

Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 01:41, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment

First, I think all of Wikipedia will wish to thank Ryan for his effective service. The Mediation Committee undoubtedly serves a vital role. In regard to this announcement, Wikipedia:Mediation_Committee/Members lists Seddon as inactive. Is this still true given his co-chairmanship? Just checking :) —James Kalmar 18:46, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi there James. Thanks for your kind words and your comment. If you take a look at Wikipedia:Mediation_Committee#Current_Mediators, you'll see that Seddon has in fact relisted himself as active - I think he must just have forgotten on the /Members page. I'll go and change it now. Regards, Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 18:55, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the community is likely to agree to this, but just fyi. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 11:36, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I sent this to the committee mailing list a moment ago. For those mediators who don't monitor mediation-en-l, and for those strange few who might actually be interested, here's a copy of what I said:

Comments, here or on the mailing list, are welcome. AGK 16:27, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

As the Committee's pages are somewhat disorganised, I'm implementing a small re-organisation of the page structure. Most of the top-level structure will remain unchanged, but hopefully things should be easier to manage after I'm done.

AGK 15:17, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Please see this thread.   «l| Promethean ™|l»  (talk) 03:02, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Why is Medcom self perpurtulating as far as choosing it's own members go. This is the only instance I know where members are chosen without wider community input and for an official project, this goes against the norms of consensus.   «l| Promethean ™|l»  (talk) 03:04, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi Promethean, is there anyone who you think should be a mediator, but isn't? Or anyone who is a mediator, but shouldn't be? If not, then I don't see any pressing need to change the process. PhilKnight (talk) 22:17, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for all the good work the Mediation Committee does! (The community in general does not seem to pay as much attention to the MC as, for instance, the Arbitration Committee - but it is appreciated nonetheless.) A couple questions out of curiousity (and to facilitate community understanding of the MC):

1. Is the relatively small number of MC members desirable?
2. Is the "clunky requests page" (see above sections) working better now, or are further improvements needed?
3. What is the average work load of the MC (e.g. cases per month, time spent by members per month, etc.)
4. Also, see the question in the directly above section, which remains unanswered to date.

Thanks! Lewis Windsor (talk) 06:03, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi Lewis,

In my humble opinion, and not necessarily in the opinion of anyone else:

1. No, I think we should recruit a few more mediators.
2. I think the current requests system works ok.
3. I don't know, but you can get some idea from looking at the archives, for example Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Archive 27.
4. Thanks for the reminder.

PhilKnight (talk) 22:24, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Just a note: when Phil spoke about the current system in this comment, the new format had already been implemented. I can say from experience that it works far better than the old format, because it's less fiddly and more forgiving to the typical beginner's mistakes with formatting and such. It also looks neater. We also have a new guide to mediation which condensed all the old (numerous) guides to mediation into one page. AGK 10:30, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about the tag, but I wanted to draw attention to this matter without actually redacting any material. The statement

"Having filed your request, MediationBot1 should add it to Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Pending (history) within the hour; and a member of the committee should notify the other parties to the dispute of the request within a couple of days."

appears to not be accurate. It contradicts this statement at Wikipedia:Mediation Committee/Policy#What will happen when you ask for mediation?:

"Once the request has been filed, the initiator is responsible for notifying the other parties of the request."

which appears to be the actual case. I am not complaining, I know the mediators are very busy and there's no reason why the filing person shouldn't do the work. I just seek clarity.

I don't want to edit any statements myself as I am not a mediator. However, perhaps someone who is familiar with the actual practice and guidelines would (whenever they get a chance) remove the tag and either

• edit Wikipedia:Mediation Committee/Policy#What will happen when you ask for mediation? to replace "the initiator is responsible for notifying the other parties of the request" with something like "a member of the mediation committee will notify the other parties to the dispute of the request within a couple of days"

or

• edit this page (Wikipedia:Mediation Committee), and replace "and a member of the committee should notify the other parties to the dispute of the request within a couple of days" with something like "and you then need to notify all the parties to the dispute".

Thank you for your time and consideration. Herostratus (talk) 15:26, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi Herostratus. The "after filing" section is correct, and the Committee policy is incorrect. RFM changed some months ago to a policy of having the mediators notify the parties, instead of having the filing party notify the other parties; but although the various guides (which have since been amalgamated into WP:RFM/G) were updated to reflect this process changed, the actual Committee policy page was not. Sorry for the confusion on this front.

On another note, the Committee bot is supposed to add new requests to WP:Requests for mediation/Pending within an hour, but the bot presently doesn't seem to be functioning; we're looking into this now. So there may be a delay in your request being processed, because a Committee member has to check the pending cases category regularly, then manually add the request. AGK 11:28, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I cannot find the list of involved users in Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/1918 Lwow Pogrom; I look for the line "; Involved users", followed by an ordered list (lines beginning "#") with each list entry beginning with the {{user}} template, followed by a new section (a line beginning "==") or subsection (a line beginning ";"). Please correct the case or fix me. When you have fixed this issue, please change the section title (e.g. append " - Fixed") or remove this section completely. I will repost the notice if the page is still broken or is re-broken. Thanks! MediationBot (talk) 16:13, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

• Resolved - AGK [•] 21:47, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Oddly this was followed by this. I have no real idea what either are supposed to be, but I thought it's worth reporting as it looked odd. --Muhandes (talk) 22:46, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Ugh, typo in the bot. AGK, please reapply {{rejected case}} to Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Mercer Island High School and the bot should update the category correctly this time. Anomie⚔ 23:36, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Ah, weird. Okay, done - AGK [•] 00:09, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Discussion within the scope of this page (as defined in the boxed preface above) should go here.

There's a Request for Comment which could be of interest at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/dispute resolution. PhilKnight (talk) 00:17, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I cannot find the list of involved users in Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Arborsculpture 2; I look for the line "; Involved users", followed by an ordered list (lines beginning "#") with each list entry beginning with the {{user}} template, followed by a new section (a line beginning "==") or subsection (a line beginning ";"). Please correct the case or fix me. When you have fixed this issue, please change the section title (e.g. append " - Fixed") or remove this section completely. I will repost the notice if the page is still broken or is re-broken. Thanks! MediationBot (talk) 04:44, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Fixed - AGK [•] 10:53, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Fixed again. I adjusted the bot to allow lines beginning "#:" or "#*" in the user list, and adjusted the case to thusly indent the remaining lines that were causing the bot to be confused. If you have any suggestions for further code changes to make things go more smoothly, please let me know. Anomie⚔ 15:19, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I cannot find the list of involved users in Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Arman Manookian; I look for the line "; Involved users", followed by an ordered list (lines beginning "#") with each list entry beginning with the {{user}} template, followed by a new section (a line beginning "==") or subsection (a line beginning ";"). Please correct the case or fix me. When you have fixed this issue, please change the section title (e.g. append " - Fixed") or remove this section completely. I will repost the notice if the page is still broken or is re-broken. Thanks! MediationBot (talk) 20:41, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

This message is posted by me in my capacity as an individual member of the MedCom who is concerned about its future and not in my capacity as the Committee Chair.

Dantheman531, a mediator emeritus, sent the following message to the Committee mailing list yesterday:

Hello everybody,

It has now been about 3 or 4 years since I left Wikipedia and my role as a member of MedCom. Most of the people on this list probably have not even had an encounter with me. I just logged in to my old email and saw my Mediation folder with 1200 unread emails, so I figured I'd send a greeting along to whomever happens to be working on it currently. Whoever it is, congratulations. You are doing important work. I don't even know if this mailing list is even still in use since the last message I received was from February, but oh well.

I hope all is well.

-Dantheman531

My response was this:

Thanks for your e-mail.

Perhaps the biggest problem with MedCom now is best demonstrated by the only person, 16 hours after you sent this message, to have responded is me. Aside from me, who is tied up as chairman with case request management, and (literally) a couple of other folks—presently, NicholasTurnbull and Anthony Appleyard, both new additions—there is nobody active on the Committee these days. I view it as essentially dead and everybody listed at WP:Mediation Committee/Members as inactive, former members of the Committee.

Whilst I've put a lot of work into revamping the Committee's processes to make it more user-friendly, which has resulted in an increase in cases for us to handle from the complete dearth at RFM when I took over, there is nothing I can do without some actual mediators to take up the cases. I'm only staying on as chairman because 1) naive part of me thinks that maybe more members will return to activity and 2) I don't want my work in revamping RFM to go to waste.

Yours in despondency,
AGK

All input is welcome, though doubtless there won't be any! AGK [•] 22:01, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

If you have a case that needs a mediator, you can send it my way. Andrevan@ 22:58, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I cannot find the list of involved users in Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Senkaku Islands; I look for the line "; Involved users", followed by an ordered list (lines beginning "#") with each list entry beginning with the {{user}} template, followed by a new section (a line beginning "==") or subsection (a line beginning ";"). Please correct the case or fix me. When you have fixed this issue, please change the section title (e.g. append " - Fixed") or remove this section completely. I will repost the notice if the page is still broken or is re-broken. Thanks! MediationBot (talk) 07:43, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I filed for mediation yesterday mediation Arborsculpture 2 It hasn't shown up yet on pending requests. Thanks Blackash have a chat 00:02, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

 Fixed The fix for T7210 has screwed up preloaded text all over Wikipedia. In this case, it caused your request to not be in Category:Mediation Committee pending cases so the bot couldn't find it. Anomie⚔ 02:27, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

To improve the body of codified policies and procedures of the Mediation Committee, and so make it easier for parties to formal mediation to understand Committee practices, a documentation page has been created at Wikipedia:Mediation Committee/Procedures. These procedures outline internal and procedural Committee practices that relate to formal mediation and other Committee processes, and include matters too specific for the formal mediation policy (at Wikipedia:Mediation Committee/Policy).

Procedures have been established for the following aspects of the Committee's business:

• Mediation Proceedings

• Filing of requests: How requests are filed
• Responding to requests: Notification of parties, and the responses required if mediation is to proceed
• Information required of requests: The data and specifics required of all requests
• Processing of requests: How the Committee will process and action requests for mediation
• Waiving party agreement: Procedures for waiving the requirement for the consent of all parties, in limited circumstances

• Mediation cases

• Assignment of mediator: How long it will take to assign requests
• Party inactivity: The procedure for cases in which a party stops participating in mediation or is absent due to real-life circumstances

• Mediation Committee

• Appointment of Chairman: How the Chairman is appointed
• Bot Operator: The role of the Bot Operator
• Nominations: General procedures relating to new nominations

The Chairman is responsible for the maintenance of these procedures, and can add new procedures to the page as necessary. When new procedures are adopted, the Chairman will add a note here for the public record. All editors are welcome to comment on this page in relation to the wording or merits of procedures, or to nominate other topics that require codification as new procedures.

For the Mediation Committee,
AGK [•] 17:19, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello there, I was reading over Wikipedia:Mediation Committee/Nominations/Feezo when I noticed the wording of part of the standard template looks worded wrong, see section "Voting", it states:

Members of the Committee should support or oppose the nomination in this section, with a rationale if appropriate. If a candidacy attracts two or more votes, it will be declined.

I'm pretty sure it should say

Members of the Committee should support or oppose the nomination in this section, with a rationale if appropriate. If a candidacy attracts two or more oppose votes, it will be declined.

But I thought I should just check first. Cheers. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 11:36, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

The following is adopted into the Procedures of the Mediation Committee, under the section "Requests for change of mediator", and relates to requests by parties to a mediation case for a change of the mediator of that case.

Per the Mediation Committee policy, the mediator of a formal mediation case can be changed if: The mediator is not impartial in relation to a case or one or more of its parties; The standard of mediation undertaken by the mediator is not satisfactory; or The mediator becomes too inactive to properly mediate. The procedure for effecting a change of mediator under the provisions of the policy are as follows. Requests for the change of a mediator under the first condition should be submitted in writing by e-mail to the Mediation Committee, stating precisely how that mediator is not impartial, and giving whatever substantiating material (such as diffs) is necessary. Per the Mediation Committee policy, requests for a change of mediator under this condition would not normally be accepted after mediation has begun, and allegations that a mediator is not impartial should be settled as soon as the mediator is assigned to the case. Requests for a change of mediator under the second condition should be submitted in writing by e-mail to the Mediation Committee, stating precisely why the mediator is not performing satisfactorily. All members of the Mediation Committee are experienced mediators, and requests of this nature should never be made flippantly. Requests for a change of mediator under the third condition should be submitted in writing by e-mail to the Mediation Committee, and should state briefly how serious the mediator's inactivity is. The Mediation Committee will evaluate the activity of the mediator and respond accordingly. The Mediation Committee will respond to all requests for a change of mediator within seven days. All e-mail sent to the Mediation Committee can be read by all Committee members, including the mediator. Accordingly, requests can be submitted in writing to the Chairman of the Committee instead of directly to the Committee mailing list; but the Chairman is not obligated to conceal the identity of the party making the request, and can at his discretion reveal it to the mediator in question.

For the Mediation Committee,
AGK [•] 22:45, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

As you may know, information pages associated with the recently concluded 2011 Board of Trustees election identified several "characteristics of effective trustees" which are worth repeating in this more narrowly-focused context:

• Strategic – e.g., to provide long term direction
• Thoughtful – e.g., to avoid being reactionary to controversial issues
• High integrity – e.g., to promote the interests of the project as a whole
• Responsiveness –
• Follow through –
• Respectful –
• Collaborative –

Is it not timely to underscore core values in conjunction with the kind of focused attention that an election engenders? --Tenmei (talk) 21:47, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Towards the end of the lead, there is a sentence which reads: "Formal mediation is not the same as informal mediation because it follows a more rigid process and is different in other ways." To me, this seems incredibly ambiguous and is really unhelpful. I would suggest that the "different in other ways" is removed and the actual differences are ore clearly outlined. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 19:58, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

The page is a brief summary, so no, I don't think we should expand the list. The full process is described at Wikipedia:Mediation Committee/Policy and related pages. AGK [•] 09:22, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

In which case, could the sentence perhaps just say: "Formal mediation is not the same as informal mediation because it follows a more rigid process." Saying that it is different in other ways without saying what the other ways are seems too ambiguous to me. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 10:45, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I have tendered my resignation as Chairman of the Mediation Committee with the following e-mail I just sent to our mailing list. I have recorded it below, for the public record:

Dear colleagues,

I have been the Chairman for four months shy of two years, and when Jimbo confirms the results of the ArbCom Elections it seems I will be named to a two-year term. I must therefore tender my resignation as the Chairman of this committee, and offer my thanks for your support, hard work, and advice over the past few years. With the support of the mediators, I will retain my subscription to this mailing list, and hope to continue to give my input on our discussions.

However, the more pressing issue will be who will succeed me as Chairman. I have sounded out a few of the most active mediators privately and at least one has offered to take up the position. Nevertheless, our practice is to hold a full internal discussion when appointing a new Chairman, and to adhere to that practice, I therefore invite any of our mediators who want to volunteer to submit their name now. I understand the Christmas season is busy for most of us, but with ten days remaining I hope we can confirm a new Chairman by the end of the month. In order to minimise the impact of the changeover on our routine processes, my resignation will not take effect until the end of 31 December 2011, or until a new Chairman is confirmed - whichever comes sooner.

Sincerely,
Anthony

AGK [•] 17:41, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Wgfinley (talk · contribs · email) is appointed as the new Chairman. For the Mediation Committee, AGK [•] 20:28, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Please see the Control of mediation section which I have boldly added to the Mediation policy. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:13, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

It looks good so far, but on my first attempt I stuffed it up a bit, so perhaps the instructions could be made a bit more user friendly. I'm curious to see how the cases would be structured if they were all done on the one page, hopefully it wouldn't become too overloaded (like a supersized DRN) but I guess we will see. The subpage idea seemed to be a reasonable way to structure things. Perhaps the cases could be transcluded onto one page (like SPI) but the actual cases remain on a subpage. I dunno. Steven Zhang ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 00:24, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Header added for ease of navigation. AGK [•] 14:41, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Hopefully this is the correct place to ask, but I noticed an error on the page Wikipedia:Mediation Committee (below the "members" table and below "see also"):

Warning: Default sort key "Mediation Committee" overrides earlier default sort key "MedComChair".

Any idea how this can be fixed? Kind regards, Trijnstel_talk 12:29, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

This is an error in the {{DEFAULTSORT}} of various Mediation Committee pages. The fault is mine, so I'll go around and fix as soon as I can. Thanks! AGK [•] 10:29, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not following what's going in the above discussion but apples are apples and oranges are oranges and there needs to be a WQA to allow a free form forum to help editors running in the vast gray unknown as the Wikipedia civility "policy." There's a lot crap that gets thrown around, and given the perennial lack of consensus on standards of behaviors, there's a need for a place for editors getting bitched at to get some sort of support from the community, even if that's often in the form of "yes, Editor X is acting like a jerk but sorry there's not much that can be done about it." No one has to watchlist WQA and no one has to respond to requests made there, so if editors don't like it I highly encourage them to ignore it. Nobody Ent 22:08, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Ironholds (talk) 11:46, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I also agree. As far as I can tell, that really wouldn't be part of the proposals here. In fact, the existence of WQA actually makes the rationale for these proposals more sound. --Tryptofish (talk) 13:25, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

@Nobody: Your wrote "I'm not following what's going in the above discussion ...". By way of background: the only reason WQA came up above was that there is a general consensus that the WP:Dispute resolution process is too complex, specifically, that there are too many forums for editors to turn to. WQA has nothing to do with mediation, of course, but an editor above seized on this mediation-simplification discussion as an opportunity to propose merging/eliminating WQA, which was perceived as an relatively insignificant or non-essential forum. --Noleander (talk) 14:44, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Oppose opposition. :) The only thing I know for sure is that we DO need to mess with WQA. According to a survey about dispute resolution, WQA is considered one of the least effective forms of dispute resolution on Wikipedia (according to a sample of active editors). Unsurprisingly, that's caused it to fall into disuse (among the same sample of editors), because people aren't going to use something that doesn't do anything. I actually think "yes, editor X is acting like a jerk, but we can't do anything" is often a solution that's more frustrating than zero help at all. But even if you disagree, we owe it to ourselves to "mess" with the dispute resolution system until we find a better alternative. I think we can agree that it's better to avoid burning WQA to the ground in order to get people to think about something better, but I would still burn it to the ground if that's what it took. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:08, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

For something apparently not in use, it still gets used a lot. If anything, issues are caused by it being understaffed (see the survey results). The statistics are also puzzling; only 92 of the sample used it at least once (53 to 58 volunteered at least once) but 160 out of 174 said it was less than good; not sure how that adds up: so it would seem its main issue is how others perceive it's effectiveness, even when they haven't used it. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:33, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I think WQA is also more effective for helping less experienced editors, something the survey doesn't take into account due to it's sampling criteria. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:46, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Respectfully, I'm not maligning the efforts of the volunteers there, but the actual process itself. Even just a look at the most recent archive doesn't reveal a whole lot of success stories. A few referrals to other noticeboards (which we should use), plus a lot of intractable problems mixed in with the occasional warning or voluntary apology (which might be more easily resolved at other forums). I'm sure that even those who haven't used it directly are familiar enough with WQA to know you can't really accomplish much there, especially compared to other forms of DR. I'd concede that WQA might work well for new users who don't understand our civility policies, and need clear instructions after they've told someone to go F themselves. But if that's all it is, it should be reformed to target those problems so it doesn't waste everyone else's time. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:52, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

• I have no real view about whether to close WQA, but that noticeboard is not related to this discussion, the MedCom, or the mediation process. No-one should worry that WQA will quietly close as a result of any thread on this page. Thanks, AGK [•] 17:34, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Agreed. Off topic. Last thing I'll say, the only attitude that I'm against is pure status quo. None of the DR processes are the best they can be, especially WQA and mediation. Let's all agree to look for ways to improve. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:57, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

So, I'm going to open by saying that there is already a discussion about this on the MedCab talkpage; I appreciate this. But I think it's worth discussing here too, simply because it dovetails onto the discussion we're already having and because, well, there are a lot more people here :). I see six people in that discussion, most of whom are just discussing the survey results and their validity rather than the actual proposal. This discussion has a lot more participants, and so is (hopefully) more representative and thus better for gauging how the proposal would fly in the wider community. In addition, the rationale here is tied into the discussions above.

Lets start with a history lesson - or a jurisdictional lesson, at least. We have two types of mediation, formal (exclusively MedCom) and informal (DRN, random talkpages, RfCs, 3O MedCab). It seems fairly clear from the above discussion that people think formal mediation needs more teeth and a greater ability to deal with issues, one way or another, and the first step to that is removing the requirement for unanimity before formal proceedings can go ahead. This is going to have one substantial knock-on - it's going to mean that the volume of cases to MedCom increases substantially, requiring a lot more volunteer time and a lot more volunteers. Alternately, cases will become bottlenecked in informal mediation. Either way, they're taking up a lot of volunteer time, and DR doesn't have that many volunteers.

The solution is to reduce the number of venues. At the moment, DR people are spread very thin, and one of the reasons for this is that processes have bloated; we've got 3O, we've got DRN, we've got WQA, we've got MedCab, we've got MedCom. Shuttering some of these will free people up, and in doing so direct volunteers where the cases will be going. This doesn't answer, of course, while MedCab is the one that should be shuttered; essentially, all the others serve a greater purpose. 3O is a venue where you can avoid formalising what may be a simple question; as much as people might say "MedCab is informal!", when it requires formal case listings and the appointment of a specific volunteer to steward the discussion, it's really not, and the cost/benefit for a simple question of ("are we allowed to say SourceA says B?") does not come out in favour of undergoing it. The DRN, on the other hand, can be used for more complex questions (as can RfC!) but in both cases they allow for a much more open participation model. They adhere to what I think should be the core principle of DR; that the first line of defence to confusion, ignorance or malice in content should not be a formal body, but instead the community as a whole - or at least, those bits interested in content. Sure, the second line can be a selected group - that's where MedCom come in - but we need the people dealing with a case the first time around to be "anyone and everyone".

MedCab, on the other hand, sorta manages to bork both models. It combines the downside of random participation (quality varies substantially) with the downside of having selected individuals (the range of perspectives being brought to the conversation is not wide). It's not quite informal, it's not quite formal, and it isn't, really, even active. If we're serious about making DR work, we have to free volunteers up to go where they're needed, whether that's properly informal mediation, or to bolster the number of formal mediators that serve on MedCom.

Accordingly, I propose that, if the discussion on lowering the bar is accepted by MedCom, we:

• Mark the Mediation Cabal as historical and remove it from the Dispute Resolution process, freeing up volunteers and reducing the number of hoops people are simultaneously asked to jump through;
• Invite the MedCab volunteers to participate in 3O, DRN or any of the other informal venues where speedy resolution can be brought;
• Should MedCom, as a result of the bar-lowering, need more volunteers, invite them (and, indeed, all DR volunteers!) to apply to any open positions, hopefully allowing them to get high-calibre candidates.

1. Support, obviously. Ironholds (talk) 20:05, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
2. Full Support. Medcab has no teeth. It can't enforce anything, can't take any formal measures against people, it's the worn out grandmother trying to control the kids to no effect. Any and all mediation should be done in a formal setting, where outcomes are enforceable and issues can be dealt with by people who actually have the clout to do the work.  BarkingFish  20:13, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
3. Support. Best way to cut down on extra avenues in the process, creating a single simple path for content resolution. I see no downsides to saying what is now actually the status quo, in terms of the Mediation Cabal. -- Lord Roem (talk) 20:14, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
4. Support. I think this will do a lot to streamline DR and help resolve content disputes satisfactorily. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 20:25, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
5. Support MedCab is called informal when it appears to be essentially formal; if people wish to wade through the extra bureaucracy they should go the extra step and do that through the mediation committee. If they don't, they should go through DRN and company. A middleman is unnecessary and confusing and makes for a rather large ladder for disputes to reach MedCom. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:27, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
6. Support pretty much per BarkingFish (goodness, I'm pretty sure that's the first time BF and I have agreed on just about anything. Is the apocalypse nigh?). Teeth and focus are required for DR to be a useful process, it turns out. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 20:30, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
7. Support as a part of a more consistent mediation proposal only. I can and do see how such could be useful in some cases, but it also can be problematic. Overall, streamlining the procedures involved would be beneficial, and I tend to think that a clearer process of informal, semi-formal, and formal mediation, with fewer steps, is probably ultimately going to be beneficial. John Carter (talk) 20:45, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
8. Support MedCab is the best of meanings put to the most futile of ends - it ends up in a situation where it exacerbates conflict and volunteers are placed in awkward positions they are ill equipped to deal with. I fear it is a moment for Cromwell. --Narson ~ Talk • 20:49, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
9. Support, obviously - it is as Ironholds says. MedCab combines the worst of both aspects. DRN has taken over the purpose of MedCab - a training ground for new mediators and an informal method for content dispute resolution. Eliminating MedCab from the picture is a step in the right direction towards streamlining DR - in future we may even have just DRN, some conduct noticeboard (but not WQA, or it gets rolled into DRN), mediation and arbitration (with maybe some structured RFC format as well). Consolidating the amount of DR forums will hopefully increase the amount of volunteers in the remaining forums, thus resolve disputes faster. Steven Zhang ^{Get involved in DR!} 22:00, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
10. Support. At the present time MedCab is not accepting any new cases. Has anyone noticed any problems arising from this? No? Then make it permanent. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:43, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
11. Support Per Steven Zhang and Guy Macon. Electric Catfish 23:17, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
12. Support; although I don't think it's fair or even accurate to dismiss their previous work. As a recent example, Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/27 February 2012/Wikipedia:Verifiability as managed to steer an acrimonious and long lasting dispute towards a productive RfC. There is a clear need, however, to reduce the number of venues and clarify their roles; and MedCab always did uncomfortably straddle the various types of DR without really being part of any of them. — Coren ^(talk) 23:51, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
13. Support per Coren. I think it's interesting that DRN is sort-of like what MedCab was in the beginning. With DRNs success, MedCab has become completely redundant. Agree with Coren that we shouldn't be lambasting their previous efforts; most of MedCom's members are from MedCab. Xavexgoem (talk) 00:01, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
14. Support per Lord Roem. Reduce the number of DR processes and streamline them. --Noleander (talk) 00:08, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
15. Tentative support, though I certainly echo Coren's remarks. AGK [•] 00:14, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
16. Support, has no teeth and doesn't offer any more effective way of resolving disputes than other methods such as RfC. Instaurare (talk) 07:36, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

    • Comment: Should it come to pass that a recommendation to close MedCab is made, I think it should include acknowledgement and thanks for all that MedCab has accomplished. I would like us to draw up a list of specific accomplishments and add it to any such recommendation. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:09, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

      Totally agreed. When I say that volunteer quality is sometimes variable, that doesn't mean that, a hell of a lot of the time, it isn't awesome. Most of our DR volunteers are rock stars - they're just spread too thin and not given the tools they need. Ironholds (talk) 01:24, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

      As an idea to this, if it's agreed, perhaps a joint statement of sorts should be made by the Mediation Committee and the MedCab co-ords? I'm not sure - it may make a bit more sense to the community. Steven Zhang ^{Get involved in DR!} 02:45, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

      That's probably not necessary. I don't think it would come up if we were having this discussion at WT:MedCab or wherever. We're just doing it here, for some reason :-P

      I don't think anyone will be confused by its closing. MedCab was always (and as far as I can tell intentionally) an off-kilter project. It's enough to say that MedCab was made redundant with its intersection between DRN and MedCom. --Xavexgoem (talk) 05:14, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

      Meh, I'm not really fussed - was just an idea I had (disclosure: I have a massive headache so most of my ideas today suck :-)) Steven Zhang ^{Get involved in DR!} 06:55, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

17. Support - If its now redundant with DRN and MedCom, and it lacks teeth anyway, lets reduce the bureaucracy. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 07:03, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
18. Support and effectuated — I was going to do this today, anyway, but wanted to do it in a fun way which honors the cabalistic history of that project. If anyone would like to fancy it up, add an image or two, or suchlike, please feel free, but the cabal needs to live forever. There is no cabal! (Long live the cabal!) Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:23, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

    I've got an awesome image monkey who owes me a favour; I'll see what I can do :). Ironholds (talk) 14:52, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

19. Temporary Support, without prejudice to re-creating it several months from now: the current process has failed. Not due to a lack of effort or ability from the volunteer mediators, but due to the fundamental structures of Wikipedia that make mediation futile. Shutting it down will give us a chance to see what happens to the level of dispute in Wikipedia. I still think that some kind of "last step" dispute resolution is necessary, and ArbCom can only handle conduct issues. Maybe marking this process as historical will allow us to think outside the box and come up with a stronger last step that still fits with the open and voluntary culture of wikipedia. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:04, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

    Totally agree; we're leaving the Mediation Committee as it is, so we have a last step process. The trick is to eliminate the bottlenecks in getting to it and then evaluate if it needs teeth. Ironholds (talk) 16:10, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

20. Support in principle, depending on what else is decided. I especially agree with Coren and Shooterwalker. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:02, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
21. Semi-support: Let's suspend them rather than cut them, see how the process works for a few months with them out of the structure, and consider from there. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 05:27, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
22. Conditional support: some changes to MedCom are pending, since MedCab was used to some degree. Probably some DR army should be recruited to MedCom to make it more interactive regarding pending cases backlog. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 15:08, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
23. Support There are altogether too many places for DR; I do not really care which one is chosen to be removed, because whatever we keep, we will have to make some radical changes to deal with the problem. I doubt that in some cases any solution will work which relies on mediation with the principles that it "is entered into voluntarily by the parties to the dispute and does not result in binding resolutions." The most effective forum in ethnic disputes seem to have been arbcom. They are not supposed to be working with content issues, but when they do, it does have the advantage of true enforceability, and the community seems to have tacitly accepted their role. I'm aware of all the objections to having such a policy more generally for content disputes, but I think in the end we will need to come to it. DGG ( talk ) 20:05, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
    • Mostly agree, but want to keep the record straight on ArbCom. ArbCom does get involved in disputes of mixed conduct-and-content but they still don't arbitrate over content. What they've done is arbitrate over the dispute resolution of that content: on what timeline, at which forum, who has to agree, and stating that the agreement will become a guideline that most editors should follow. ArbCom still never actually makes the new policy themselves. It goes to show you, mediation could be effective in settling a lot of disputes over content and mixed content-and-conduct. But it can't be a flimsy "don't participate in mediation if you don't want to, and ignore the mediated agreement if you don't like it". I'm for anything to make the mediation process stronger, as long as the mediators are focusing on process instead of the outcome. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:56, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
      • Totally agreed. What I'd like to see is us all come back in 3, 6 months after these proposals have been enacted and say "have they gone far enough? If not, do we give MedCom teeth?". Ironholds (talk) 22:28, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

• The Mediation Cabal's co-ordinators have closed the service to new cases, and marked it as historical. AGK [•] 13:07, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

• Late comment: IMO WP:DRN is closer to the original Medcab design anyway (or was, last time I looked) . O:-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 09:13, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Is it time to end formal mediation?

A draft policy to implement certain outcomes from these discussions has been written. Please skip to this section to read more.

I attended a session at Wikimania with the "fellows" wherein the each presented their findings from the past year. The schedule was a bit screwy, apparently this rejected submission was rolled into this panel discussion.

The point is, during the section on DR it was mentioned that during the fellowship tenure formal mediation's success rate was a rather alarming 0%. I think perhaps it is time to reconsider the wisdom of continuing to have formal mediation if the results are this poor. I don't mean to insinuate that there is anything wrong with the fine people who put their time and energy into this process, it just doesn't seem to work. My guess is that by the time a dispute gets here any kind of chance for agreement or compromise is already out the window and this has become more of a stepping stone to ArbCom than a functional part of our dispute resolution mechanisms. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:55, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I think that it's only appropriate that I comment here - I'm the one that's done the research on dispute resolution in my role as a fellow, and I came up with this statistic. So, to clarify, the 0% result came from an analysis of disputes at MedCom that were either filed or closed in May 2012. Only 7 were at MedCom, 4 were outright rejected and the other three that were open in May were closed as unsuccessful. It appears that the last successful mediation was Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Draza_Mihailovic - closed on 4 September 2011, and since that time MedCom has had 51 requests for mediation (that I can see), ten of which were accepted, and two are currently open. In May, the three open cases were open for an average of 29.6 days, and none of them were successfully resolved (as described on the case pages). The DR survey results on effectiveness according to the respondents rated RFM as poor by 29%, mediocre by 23%, average by 25%, good by 20% and excellent by 3%.

Now, all these figures don't necessarialy mean that MedCom is bad, it may just indicate that once a dispute reaches RFM it's too late. The high amount of rejected cases may indicate one of two things - either that the bar for acceptance is too high, or it's too easy to file a case at RFM when it should be looked at somewhere like DRN. I don't think MedCom should be closed, but as I have mentioned to medcom-l before, I think some change could be of benefit. I just wanted to make it clear as to how I reached my conclusions. The purpose of outlining these stats is because the trend showed that the further a content dispute went up the DR chain, the less likely it was to be successfully resolved. Regards, Steven Zhang ^{Get involved in DR!} 22:43, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

It was 0% for the month of May. 99.149.231.106 (talk) 13:11, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Comment - I only participated in mediation once, involving about a dozen persons. After about a month of hard work by all participants, including the mediator, a good compromise was achieved. The participants attempted to implement the solution in the article, but two editors who had refused to participate in the mediation rejected it, explaining that it was non-binding and that they objected to it. Their position was entirely consistent with WP policies. For over a month, these two watched a dozen editors work in a collegial and collaborative fashion, then they sabotaged all the work. Since then, I've declined to participate in any mediation. The solution, in my opinion, is not to entirely eliminate mediation, but instead:

1. WP needs a binding mediation/arbitration process: think of it as an ArbCom for content issues.
2. Mediation/arbitration resolutions would be binding for only 6 months or a year (not forever).
3. The resolution would be binding only if there are three or more mediators/arbitrators and if a majority of them concur with the resolution.
4. Mediators/arbitrators would be uninvolved, trusted editors, ideally with significant content-creation experience.
5. Generally, the resolution should originate with the participants (subject matter experts) not the arbitrators, but the latter could suggest compromises.
6. Notification would be through normal WP channels: article Talk pages, project notifications, notifications to editors that edited the article (or its Talk page) in a significant way, RfC creation, DRN creation, WP centralized discussions, etc.
7. Parties that refused to participate in the mediation/arbitration would not be able to block implementation of the resolution.
8. Parties that participate must do so in good faith and not hold to tendentious/uncooperative positions.
9. The mediators/arbititrators would be able to adopt a resolution that tendentious/uncooperative participants do not agree to (thus, unanimous concurrence is not required).
10. Non-binding mediation/arbitration would still be available, of course, within the existing Mediation Cabal, or folded into the WP:Dispute resolution noticeboard.
11. Binding mediation/arbitration could continue within the existing mediation framework; or integrated with WP:Dispute resolution noticeboard or RfC process.. There is no need to create a new framework for this.

My 2 cents. --Noleander (talk) 14:01, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Note - The above bullet list above was amended to include points discussed below; and also re-formatted. --Noleander (talk) 14:55, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

• • I am not opposed to the idea of some sort of binding mediation, so long binding means the agreement that the parties themselves reach, not some sort of Content Committee decision. -- Lord Roem (talk) 15:27, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

My idea is that: (1) parties that refused to participate in the mediation/arbitration would not be able to block implementation of the resolution; (2) Parties that participate must do so in good faith and not hold to tendentious/uncooperative positions; and (3) The mediators would be able to endorse a resolution (that originated with the participants, not the mediators) that tendentious/uncooperative participants do not agree to. That latter point is why this hypothetical binding process should perhaps be called "arbitration" rather than "mediation". --Noleander (talk) 17:57, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Interesting idea. In this scenario, would this "binding mediation" bind editors who weren't in the mediation, but still want to edit the article? How would the mediators ensure that every possible viewpoint is included in the process? -- Lord Roem (talk) 20:49, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the resolution would be binding on all editors, for 6 months or a year. Ensuring that all viewpoints are represented would be done through normal WP processes: (a) notification on article Talk pages; (b) notification to projects; (c) notifications to editors that worked on the article(s) in question; and perhaps: (d) RfC creation; (e) DRN notification; and (f) WP centralized discussion. Think of it this way: it is a formal Mediation/RfC/DRN, which lasts for a month and is decided by a committee of 3 uninvolved, trusted, experienced arbitrators. The resolution would only be binding if 2 of the 3 arbitrators concurred with the resolution. --Noleander (talk) 14:41, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I updated the bullet list above to include these additional thoughts (that way, all the concepts are co-located). --Noleander (talk) 15:05, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks to Steven for clarifying matters and my apologies for not letting him know I was planning to cite him here, luckily he figured it out anyway. So, what we have here is a process that has not succesfully resolved an issue in the last ten months. That's actually a bit worse that I had thought. The idea of binding mediation is not without merit, but I'm not so sure the community will go for that unless the selection process for the mediators is roughly equivalent to the selection of ArbCom members. If we give this process more teeth it is going to need more community involvement in the selection process as well. Checks and balances and all that. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:35, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
  • I think Noleander strikes the right note. Reforms and changes to the process, on a structural level, is far preferable than the arbitrary closure of an 8-year Committee. We have successes and failures, and yes maybe a great deal of failures, but I feel we need to be careful in how we approach this. We are touching a pretty big issue - how do we resolve content disputes on Wikipedia. Let's keep the perspective of the importance there in moving forward with this discussion. But it is a discussion I'm willing to have. Lord Roem (talk) 20:49, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Not sure why you think this proposal is arbitrary. It is based on the poor performance of this process, as established by data. I don't have anything against the idea or the people who volunteer here, but it seems like a waste of resources if the success rate is so low. As I hinted before, I think this is less to do with the process itself and more to do with the fact that by the time a dispute ends up here many involved parties will be so firmly entrenched in their positions that coming to an acceptable compromise is nearly impossible no matter how skilled and patient the mediators are. However if we can find a way to make the process more effective instead of simply doing away with it that would be great. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:58, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that is what I'm trying to get at. But the devil's in the details. -- Lord Roem (talk) 21:05, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

In the course of that month we had 4 cases, I believe. Other DR boards had much greater volume. We deal with very difficult nationalist and religious disputes, and some other nearly-intractable problems. Many of them went through lower DR boards before coming to MedCom, so there goes the idea of dissolving MedCom as ineffective. But what to do about that all this? I don't know, but involving ArbCom seems like a huge and ugly step backwards. Any binding solution must (I can't say this loudly enough: MUST) be via party compromise, never ever imposed by a committee. Frankly, I'm more interested in how we can deal with conduct issues during mediation, since that's (at least for me) the bigger issue. We can rarely go to AN/I if something crops up. Xavexgoem (talk) 19:27, 23 July 2012 (UTC) Also, I was the IP above. Didn't log in, apparently

(As an aside: Xavexgoem and John Carter both responded as if someone had proposed that the ArbCom get involved - but nowhere above was ArbCom suggeseted as a solution. The prior discussions only suggested an ArbCom-like group to mediate content disputes.) --Noleander (talk) 20:45, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

+1. Pulled right from my own mind. I think this RfC would be much more useful if it was expanded in scope to the issues raised above. As I said before, this is some difficult stuff. But, this provides a perfect opportunity to have these discussions... and we must have these discussions in any debate over our DR process. -- Lord Roem (talk) 19:46, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

RfC comment from one of those, um, persons, most frequently involved in religious issues which become intractable. Dunno what that says about me, but it probably isn't good. Anyway, ArbCom is good for what it does, but I don't think it is cut out for binding discussion on content. This group as it exists may have problems, but we do need some sort of content mediation and adjudication body as well. I remember one of the processes ArbCom used in the rather messy Macedonia naming dispute case was to have a group of highly regarded editors volunteer to be, basically, a tribunal to decide the issue of the Macedonia naming question for a short time. I would prefer avoiding that final step as much as possible, but maybe having, as a final outcome, some sort of independent tribunal decide a question the parties can't agree on themselves might make mediation efforts easier. I doubt many people want the question taken entirely out of their hands, as such a tribunal does, so I think it might make them a bit more inclined to be mediatable if they were to know that, if they refuse to compromise, the matter might be taken out of their hands entirely. Just a thought, anyway, from someone who does bloody little in this area except take sides on issues like this. John Carter (talk) 20:10, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

In other words, the possibility of content arbitration might encourage editors to make more of an effort in mediation? That sounds like an argument for content arbitration as an additional step between mediation and full arbitration, perhaps available only in the event of failed mediation. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 20:43, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

The Macedonia example is spot-on. My point is: Why should that "tribunal" process be so ad hoc? Why not formalize it? Simply enhance one of our existing processes (mediation, RfCs, DRN, etc) so a small group of trusted, uninvolved editors can resolve content disputes. --Noleander (talk) 20:47, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Noleander, I think this needs to be said: even if some members of the Mediation Committee and the DR community agree to this idea in principle (which it appears some of us actually do), I'm not sure how receptive the rest of the WP community would be to anything approaching "Content" and "Committee". I don't want to shoot this down with just that idea, but we need to keep some perspective when discussing such a major change to the process. -- Lord Roem (talk) 20:52, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I know that it would not be a popular idea. The only reason I'm spending any time on the proposal is because S. Zhang is engaging in a long-term effort to improve and streamline the dispute resolution process, so I figure it is worth throwing out some ideas. Also, I've seen too many situations where two POV groups are arguing over an article, and the article ends up in an ugly condition ... when a sensible outsider could often, usually within 15 minutes, find a decent middle ground. --Noleander (talk) 20:58, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

A policy to permit some form of binding content DR has been proposed and taken before the community several times before and has failed so often that it could be regarded to be one of those perennially-suggested changes which have no chance of success. Not that some of us aren't willing to keep trying. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:59, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I hear ya. Hmm. What are your thoughts on some sort of 'pilot test' of whatever method we agree on? Some sort of community-approved test-run of binding mediation, just like the Abortion titles RfC or the 'tribunal' you discuss above? The idea with this being we write up a plan for a long-term implementation of this change, ask the community to support its application for one case before MedCom, and then see whether there's support for implementing this on a continued basis. So... your thoughts? -- Lord Roem (talk) 21:04, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that sounds like a good idea: draft a process, then pick an active content dispute from Armenian genocide, or creationism, or abortion, etc, and try it out. I'm not too familiar with S. Zhang's charter, but I believe he has a mission to look into things like that, so maybe he should be involved. Otherwise, we may have overlapping efforts underway, which would not be efficient, and would diminish the appeal of this proposal to the wider community. --Noleander (talk) 21:12, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

If I might make a proposal, I personally would like to have any such proposal include also having some editors, involved or not, go through the relevant reference books, like encyclopedias, which might have content on the subject. I personally think a fair number of mediation efforts might be more easily resolved with such a conscious review of reference sources, and that doing so might also make it easier for the involved editors to resolve the matters involved themselves, short of a tribunal. John Carter (talk) 21:44, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

@Noleander, the scope of my fellowship has been to research and identify problems with the dispute resolution processes - I've done that and my results can be found in the DR survey - I'm now at the stage where I'm trying to get change to happen - starting with DRN. The last time a binding content process was proposed, (WP:BCD - by me) it was turned down by the community - and this was a community oriented process - similar to an RFC. The idea of a content committee I think will always be shot down, for the sole reason that it takes the matter of deciding content out of the hands of the community - and they don't like that. An RFC format would be a better way to structure such a process - the old proposal can always be worked on and resubmitted to the community. I need to be somewhat careful to make the lines between my actions as a contractor of the WMF and my actions as a volunteer clear. It can work to my benefit however - because of my extensive involvement with dispute resolution over the years, this isn't something random that I've done in my capacity as a fellow - the fellowship has aided me to research the processes and get data that support my hypothesis - that we need change. I'll be hosting an office hour this coming Saturday, 19:00UTC in #wikimedia-office. You can find corresponding timezone info at this page. But yeah, this all needs community input. I plan a multi-faceted approach. Steven Zhang ^{Get involved in DR!} 22:01, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I was not aware of the WP:BCD proposal ... it looks fine by me. It satisfies my recommendation that we not invent a new process/group, but instead evolve an existing process (RfC, DRN, Mediation) and simply formalize the notion of "closing with prejudice". Many RfCs ask for a closing admin via the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure process. When an admin closes such an RfC, it is virtually binding for several months - and yet the WP:RFC process contains no mention of this method of formally closing the RfC by an uninvolved person. One could say that WP already has a semi-binding closure process, but won't admit it. It appears that there are three ways to move forward: (1) enhance one of the mediation processes more structured & binding; (2) enhance the RfC process (similar to BCD proposal); or (3) enhance the DRN process. I take it from your (SZ) comments that you are leaning towards enhancing DRN. That's fine. I'll just keep by eyes and ears open and participate when I can. --Noleander (talk) 00:21, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

At the moment, my focus at present is on growing the pool of volunteers, and improving the success rate of DRN - currently just under 50%. I'm working on this in a few ways, creating a wizard that makes it easier to file disputes, a guide for new volunteers to assist with disputes and a set of guidelines for handling disputes. I've got other plans as well, but I want to take it one step at a time. Now that we're here though, I think that change at MedCom is needed, and definitely needs to be discussed. See my comments further below. Steven Zhang ^{Get involved in DR!} 02:01, 25 July 2012 (UTC)`

• Meh. If I had to make an oppose or support with a gun pointed at my head, I'd say that I support the shut-down because MedCab does more and is more open to actually doing it when it needs to be done. (Full disclosure: I'm one of the current coordinators at MedCab.) But I don't see that the continued existence of MedCom does any real harm, on the other hand and, thus, meh. As for binding content dispute resolution, my proposal has been here for quite awhile. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:33, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

• I have a few ideas that could improve MedCom, streamline dispute resolution and reduce the amount of hopeless cases that are filed here. DRN could act as the entry point for disputes, and if the dispute after five days of discussion (proper discussion, not just sporadic one without input) a resolution has not been achieved, it could be filed at MedCom and the other requirements for acceptance (except agreement by parties - but I still think unanimous agreement is unwise) could be waived. MedCom has a bunch of hardened, experienced mediators, but many disputes by the time they get here the Dalai Lama himself could not resolve - and I think it's because it takes so long for a dispute to actually get here. Let's do something about that, shall we? (Though I'd be more in favour of mediators here helping out at DRN so they /can/ get resolved at DRN :-) Steven Zhang ^{Get involved in DR!} 21:47, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the notion of mediators helping with DRN: I'll mention my suggestion (made a couple of months ago, elsewhere) that we try to consolidate the multiple lists of volunteers: (1) WP:Feedback request service, (2) WP:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Volunteering‎, (3) WP:Mediation Committee/Members, and (4) WP:Mediation_Cabal/Volunteers. I know there are some arguable differences between the roles, but there is plenty of commonality: experienced editors that are willing to pitch-in and help resolve content disputes in a unbaised manner. A side benefit of consolidating these pools of volunteers that that they would be involved with the various DR processes (RfC, mediation, DRN) and that would naturally lead to simplification/consolidation of those multiple processes. --Noleander (talk) 00:32, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

From my check, it looks like the last successful attempt at mediation from MedCom was Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Hooke's Law, about a year ago. And looking at all the outright rejected requests or outright failed attempts at mediation, less than 5% cases get accepted, and less than 1% will result in a successful mediation. It looks like zero progress ever gets made when these disputes get sent here. Perhaps the standards for acceptance are too high, or even because of the above suggestion that decisions are not binding. However, in the case of the latter, that is the difference between mediation and arbitration (in general terms, not necessarily MedCom and ArbCom), that mediation merely facilitates conflict resolution among the disputing parties themselves, while arbitration results in enforceable resolution steps as determined by an arbitrator and not through said parties.

I think the problem tends to be multiple-pronged: Some disputes simply cannot be mediated because nobody wants to lose their ground or their position, or they simply will not back down towards a negotiatory stance. Other times, disputants feel a need for something authoritative from on high (i.e. a "ruling" from someone in authority), which is more within the purview of arbitration. Finally, in many other cases, it's just a matter of classic battleground mentality, where it's all about one side winning and the other side losing. --MuZemike 01:05, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

All very true, although see Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/New_antisemitism. It can happen.

MedCom is in a weird position. We're ostensibly the greatest content DR process, but we get the hardest cases and some of the worst edit warriors. We also get less room to maneuver than other DR forums because of our privileged nature. We're not afforded much latitude. Not that the privileged nature should go away, but our ability to handle conduct issues (like battleground mentalities, unwavering/tendentious stances) is practically 0 for those issues that can't be resolved through talk. I think I've mentioned this before: one idea is if the committee-as-a-whole could act as a sort of administrator for some of the worst cases. We can't go to AN/I nor exercise admin rights besides housekeeping. Xavexgoem (talk) 10:12, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I like this idea, actually, if there would be some way to define it in a usable way. I suppose, for worst-case-scenarios, maybe there could be some sort of general call to "mediators" to actively review a subject in such a way that those "mediators" who had not previously been involved in mediating the topic in question could count among those individuals determining WP:CONSENSUS relative to a given topic? John Carter (talk) 16:00, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

• I think we can all agree that Formal Mediation as currently constructed is ineffective. Echoing Noleander, I'd argue that what is needed is binding content mediation, akin to ArbCom for behavioral issues, but directed towards content. There needs to be a mechanism to toss POV warriors from a page and to establish an NPOV version. I'm not sure that blowing up the current Mediation Committee is the way to get there. Carrite (talk) 00:09, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

"Blowing up MedCom" does sound a bit drastic. That is why I look at it another way: WP has only a small number of experienced, neutral volunteers who are willing to help out with content disputes. But those volunteers are spread out across MedCom, MedCab, RfCs, & DRN. Suspending one or two of those forums, although painful, could prompt all the volunteers to work together in the remaining forums (DRN & RfC?), and eventually lead to more success & happiness. --Noleander (talk) 04:47, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

• Suspend MedCom? Hmm...I dunno. I'd like to simplify the transition of requests from DRN to MedCom, but lowering standards of acceptance here is step one. Steven Zhang ^{Get involved in DR!} 00:31, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Proposal (and rambling thoughts) by Keilana

I think I'm in the minority here - and fwiw I'm speaking as an individual, not for the committee - but I think that the DRN has made MedCab (and WQA, to a degree) superfluous. Why not trying to merge WQA and DRN, and (somehow) merge MedCab and MedCom. I think we could do this by lowering MedCom's standards somewhat, so that disputes can easily move from DRN to MC if necessary, and folding some of the more experienced members into MedCom (given that they get approval and whatnot). WQA and DRN could just be the same thing, and I'm sure those two sets of volunteers both overlap and will get along nicely. Then, there will be an informal process for solving problems (DRN 2.0), a formal mediation process (less discriminating MedCom), and an arbitration process. That way, we can take advantage of the volunteers who have been part of MedCom a long time - those of us who have been around the longest are at 4-5 years I think - and are thus pretty 'hardened', and the new blood at DRN. If MedCom needs new people, the longtime DRN people would have the requisite experience. What does everyone think of this? Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 06:10, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I like this. It links lowering the bar with the numbers needed to take those cases. --Xavexgoem (talk) 08:15, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Good proposal. I support any steps that reduce the redundancy of the multiple dispute resolution processes. Not mentioned in Keilana's proposal is 3PO and RfC: Could they be streamlined also? E.g. merge 3PO into DRN? --Noleander (talk) 13:30, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, I agree. Good idea, Keilana! -- Lord Roem (talk) 13:35, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I think the issue of what to do about WQA and conduct DR in general is one of the things that may be discussed at Steven Zhang's office hours DR brainstorming session on IRC #wikimedia-office ^connect tomorrow, Saturday, 28th July 2012 at 19:00 UTC. See the announcement at Wikipedia_talk:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Brainstorming. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:31, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm opposed to merging 3O and RFC into DRN, because both of them have fundamental differences from DRN. 3O is facially similar, but has two components which DRN does not have: Third Opinions do not "count" towards consensus (explanation here) and 3O has a requirement of opinion-giver neutrality that DRN does not have. I'm also opposed to merging 3O, by the way, because I believe that it is highly successful and well-used in its current form. (The wizard that Steven is developing for DRN could, however, be expanded to be a front-end to allow a choice between 3O and DRN, and thus serve as a single entry point for DR. I'd have no objection to that.) RFC is for the purpose of bringing the attention of the entire community to a discussion so that consensus can be reached, and while it has the effect of ending disputes (and is arguably a DR process for that reason) its focus is more on the subject matter than on the dispute itself, which is what DRN and other DR processes are about. While the ultimate goal is the same, the philosophy and approach of DR and RFC are different. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:53, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

For many years RfC was (and still is?) probably the most commonly used content dispute resolution process. RfC is prominently mentioned in Wikipedia:Dispute resolution as a key avenue of dispute resolution. It is only in the past half-year that DRN has become more heavily used and starting to "compete" with RfC. RfCs (unless they are posted at Centralized Discussion) do not get the "attention of the entire community", but - if the poster is lucky - get 3 or 4 uninvolved editors to provide inputs. The goals of RfC and DRN are nearly identical: to get uninvolved volunteers to provide input to resolve a content dispute. Their similarities far outweigh their differences. One situation where RfC differs from DRN is when there is no underlying dispute (e.g. the poster is asking for feedback on a proposal). As DRN expands and becomes more heavily used, we should at least acknowledge the RfC process and ask if the long-term intention is to steer content disputes to DRN and to limit RfC to non-dispute scenarios. --Noleander (talk) 15:26, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, I don't think that merging 3O is a good idea right now at least. RfC is also iffy in my opinion, because it is fundamentally not a mediation-based process. I'm with Noleander, if DRN gains the traction I think it will - especially if we merge WQA into it - then yeah, content disputes should absolutely be referred to DRN (or MedCom if it's sufficiently bad), not RfC which would drag more people into the dispute. Then RfC can be used for its intended purpose, to get people to observe a situation and give their opinion. DRN and MedCom can then be used for their intended purposes, to mediate and solve disputes with the help of an outside, neutral mediator. There's a really fundamental difference between an RfC and a dispute resolution case, and I don't think conflating them is ever ever a good idea. (sorry for rambling) to address Noleander's proposal in short, I think 3O and RFC should remain separate processes, as their nature is fundamentally different from WQA/DRN and MedCab/MedCom. As TransporterMan said, "the philosophy and approach of DR and RFC are different." However, there seems to be some agreement that WQA could easily be folded into DRN and MedCab into MedCom. Is it too premature to discuss how to go about this, and asking the relevant people? Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 16:40, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I have no objection to deferring discussion of RfCs, because trying to do too much at once could be problematic. But it is important to clarify what RfCs are: Two editors above have implied that they are not a dispute resolution mechanism. That is not correct. RfCs are a dispute resolution mechanism, and that is clearly stated in Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. As someone who has volunteered at over 100 RfCs, I'd guess that over 90% of RfCs are rooted in a content dispute. Furthermore, RfCs also have a semi-binding closure mechanism, where the participants can ask an admin to review the RfC and determine what the consensus was, and close the RfC with a pronouncement on its outcome. I'm not married to the RfC process, and if DRN eventually grows to take-over the role of content-dispute RfCs, that is fine. But we shouldn't mis-state the purpose and nature of RfCs. --Noleander (talk) 17:01, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Noleander, I guess I was thinking more of binding community RfCs and RfCs like this one, which is really my experience with them. And yes, I think streamlining DR is totally possible if we leave 3O and RfC off the table for right now, they are functioning okay and we can discuss that once we have DRN2.0 and MedCom2.0 in place. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 17:07, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Okay, that makes sense. There are probably lots of editors whose only experience with RfCs are the high-profile community-wide RfCs that ask for input on major policy proposals. Personally, I watch the RfC master list, and I see the dozens of content-dispute RfCs that crop up every month. Many of them get no input from anyone, some get only 1 or 2 editors responding. It is these content-dispute RfCs that could, eventually, be considered for merge into DRN. When that discussion happens, we need to talk about the topic-specific RfC volunteers listed at WP:FRS and see how they would get involved with DRN. --Noleander (talk) 17:31, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, but I definitely see that as a Phase 2 sort of thing. If we can cut 4 confusing fora down to 2 fairly straightforward fora, then that's a huge step. Once we see that those processes are functioning ok, then we can move on to talking about/actioning 3O and RfC. Does that sound okay to you? Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 17:42, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Chipping in here - I'd have to oppose the folding of WQA into DRN. It's not that we don't want to look at these issues - it's just that WQA is a mess, and at present is our least effective dispute resolution process (according to the survey - 8% of respondents who held an opinion thought it was effective). From an analysis of disputes at WQA in May, 21.4% of disputes that were sent there were resolved successfully as a result of WQA. I'd much rather see WQA closed. The way I see it, if the conduct of someone needs looking into, it can either go to somewhere like AN or ANI if it needs tom be actioned, otherwise it can go to RFC/U, or another noticeboard. A lot of threads at WQA are "User X did Y to me and I don't like it" - and then mudslinging ensues. I think we should just mark it as historical and be done with it. The rest of this proposal, I fully agree with. MedCab and DRN has a bunch of seasoned volunteers that would be an asset to the Mediation Committee, and if DRN is restructured to be more fast-paced, we will need the help of MedCom to resolve the larger disputes - that can only be done if the standards are lower and there is a larger committee. Steven Zhang ^{Get involved in DR!} 21:20, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

• Further to Keilana's comments and incorporating thoughts from other editors on this page (and some discussion earlier in the year on our mailing list), I've started a poll in the section #For and against lowering the bar to formal mediation. This is one of the easiest reforms to instigate, but appears necessary for any subsequent changes—so it seems to me like a good place to start. AGK [•] 16:51, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Proposal by TransporterMan

MedCom would be much more useful if it would accept some cases. It's been shown at MedCab that mediation can work even if all the disputants are not present. (Those who don't participate tend to just fade away.) I would propose that MedCom remain open, but that all requirements be removed that all parties to a mediation must agree to the mediation before a case can be accepted.

(While I'm not making it a part of this proposal, I think this would be enhanced by also adopting some rules — the entire community would have to approve these additional rules, of course — that the acceptance of a mediation case creates an automatic topic ban at the article page of the matter in dispute, broadly interpreted, so that the editors who were involved in the dispute must either take part in the mediation or refrain from editing. Perhaps there could even be a rule that any editor who was involved in the dispute prior to the case being accepted will remain topic banned on the topic in dispute after the mediation is closed if they do not take part in the mediation in good faith, in order to prevent them from just sitting back and waiting for the mediation to end to restart the dispute, but that might not be necessary.)

Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:01, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I completely agree that the standards for acceptance of mediation should be lowered - for the sole reason that it takes only one person to block a mediation. As Xavexgoem points out, not all cases that lack unanimous acceptance are doomed - some have had success like the one linked above. I think anything lower than the current standard is better - the Mediation Committee can review a case which has some disagreement and discuss whether it should be accepted or not - with the full knowledge that there may be nowhere else for the dispute to go. DRN has picked up a lot of slack, but it can't handle all disputes - and MedCab is closed. With all due respect, MedCom needs to pick their game up - DRN is overflowing with cases and volunteers are getting burnt out. This change at formal mediation will make the transition to a new dispute resolution system easier, and I hope the committee will support the change. Regards, Steven Zhang ^{Get involved in DR!} 02:49, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I too think something along these lines might be the best way to proceed. I do not think we should totally destroy the existing structure, firstly in order to recognize the work of those who tried to get the present system to operate, and secondly, because we need something a right now, and relatively smaller changes will go faster. At least, it addresses my own primary reason for not participating in these processes: the frustration from not being able to get a decision to stick. DGG ( talk ) 21:57, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Proposal by Xavexgoem

The Mediation Committee is important. We are the final step in content DR. There have been many different proposals over the years under many different chairs with many different members. Very little has changed, because of our immense institutional inertia. If we lower the bar, we will get more disputes, all likely difficult. That is our job, that is why MedCom was created. We'd also need more recruits. More recruits means a more active mailing list, and a more active mailing list means more internal discussions, or at any rate longer lasting ones. With that, we can hopefully bring about some more substantive changes. At the moment, I don't see any big changes happening. And we do need changes: Compared to other DR fora, we have the most experience but the least capability.

The least we can do is lower the bar and breathe some more life into MedCom. I've heard that this is a big change. I disagree, and I would like the chance to rebut any arguments. Xavexgoem (talk) 15:42, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

So let's do it. We're talking about it and I'm afraid this is going to end like most discussions here do, with nothing changing. While we all have the energy, let's hack out something we - and other DR volunteers - can get behind, and let's implement it for the benefit of the community. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 16:43, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

YES! Again, I agree with what Xav says. Let's do two things to both focus this discussion and get this broader input. We need to (1) propose very specific changes so this conversation gets somewhere and (2) consider adding this to the watchlist notices to gain more commentary once we develop those specific proposals. Thoughts? -- Lord Roem (talk) 16:46, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Ok, yeah, maybe we could structure a binding RfC on the matter? Or just be bold and go for it? The proposal I have in mind is that we move all of the disputes currently at WQA to DRN, link the archives at DRN, and soft-redirect WP:WQA to DRN, with a note explaining that the two were folded together to facilitate streamlined dispute resolution. Then, since MedCab is pretty much shut down anyways, we mark it as historical and say that MedCom will accept cases formerly for MedCab, and somehow make it clear that experienced mediators are invited to apply to MedCom. We would also have to put a note at DRN (and maybe rewrite WP:DR) to explain the new process and say that anything not resolved at DRN can be taken immediately to MedCom. I'm not sure how internal MedCom policy would have to change; my thought there is that we would probably have to make the consensus from a mediation binding for a period of time, and allow people to opt out of mediation knowing that they would have no say in the final product. Does that sound workable? Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 17:04, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Now we are getting somewhere. I like it. It's bold but not crazy and will, once completed, make DR less confusing. This discussion is already listed at CENT so I don't see any need to have another RFC. People who are intereted in DR are pretty much already here. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:15, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I think that the above proposal by Keilana is a great plan: it really reduces the redundancy of the DR processes. I don't know if an RfC is needed ... maybe just post a prominent note on the WQA Talk page and then wait a few days to see if anyone there objects. If no objections arise: the go forward. --Noleander (talk) 17:18, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I like it, and agree with Beeblebrox that another RfC isn't needed. But- what about putting a note about this RfC on the watchlist? This is fairly important stuff. -- Lord Roem (talk) 17:24, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I'd be ok with that. I'm going to link to this discussion over on WQA and ping some frequent volunteers over there and give them a rundown, hopefully if anyone has concerns or objections they can pop over here and discuss. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 17:30, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Noleander already linked at WQA, I'll go ping volunteers now. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 17:33, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Awesome! I'm glad to see momentum building on this! Lord Roem (talk) 17:36, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Me too! <happy dance> So I think the way forward from here is to wait and see what the WQA volunteers say (I found 2 who contributed more than once), and if no one objects either at the talk or here, we have a few options. We could either post a watchlist notice about our intention to fold WQA into DRN/MedCab into MedCom, post a community notice in all the usual places, or just do it. Thoughts? Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 17:40, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I would like to see a bit more outside input before we make that change. Consensus of just the ten people interested in DR probably isn't enough on its own. Lord Roem (talk) 17:42, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, I think a watchlist notice would be the best way to reach a bunch of people. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 17:53, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I am absolutely against any binding content decisions. Any good group of editors ought to be able to form a consensus. Our goal is to put people into a position where they can be better. If we can get a good number on opposite of people to agree, then they can enforce the consensus themselves against the few die-hards. Content should be enforced with meatball:SoftSecurity, but I've gotten to the point where I don't think that's sufficient for conduct in content disputes.

I only want a more active mediation community. These things really need to be thought through, and I don't want to put the cart before the horse. Let's get a bit more activity here, first. Xavexgoem (talk) 17:51, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Xavexgoem, how do you feel about allowing mediation to proceed without the agreement of all editors, then? I'm not disagreeing - I think binding content decision would have to be very carefully thought through and are probably unworkable. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 17:53, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

We deny plenty of cases on one reject, or two on opposite sides. Imagine you have 6 editors, 3 on each side (yeah, I shouldn't talk about "sides", but that's how it often breaks down). If 5 of them agree first and then one of them rejects mediation, the others on that side probably won't follow suit. It'd be too obvious. You can work out the lopsided 3-to-2 nature of the mediation later. If the mediator manages to build a consensus, that 1 editor is going to be at a tremendous disadvantage. Currently, people can drop out knowing that it benefits them to do so, because they put a halt to any effort at compromise. Tendentious editors in particular have everything to gain.

Of course it won't always play out that way. There's actually a lot of nuance to be considered just for this issue alone. Xavexgoem (talk) 17:59, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

And I agree, I think that may be where the binding nature of arbitration comes in. So what changes to MedCom do you think are necessary to make it a workable solution? Obviously we can't give up the core tenets of mediation, but I think we could find ways to make it easier for mediation to work. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 18:10, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Greater cooperation with ArbCom has always been a proposal, but I'm ambivalent. I don't know the details, though. I'm mostly interested in two things:

• Consensus, not unanimity, like with MedCab. I'm not even sure this would exhaust our current reserve of mediators. MedCom is only ever 15% active or thereabouts. Escalations from DRN would need to be at a steady pace, imho.
• A more robust way of handling personal attacks and general dickishness. I like my committee-as-a-whole idea, partly because it maintains the privileged nature (although an outside opinion would probably be best as well).

I'm only immediately concerned about the former. That's a good start. How we would go about implementing that I'm not sure. I think it could be implemented internally, if all of MedCom agrees. Xavexgoem (talk) 18:20, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Is this something that should be taken to the mailing list? For what it's worth, I agree, but mostly with the second part. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 19:05, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I'd say let this run a bit longer, see if we can't get some more writing on that thar wall ;-) The first bit is a perennial proposal. The second bit is new, and that should probably be discussed seriously internally, first. Xavexgoem (talk) 19:20, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I would be curious how the merge will work, considering DRN does not deal with issues which concern user conduct and effectively forbids mentioning user issues, while dealing with incivility is the sole purpose of WQA (I've also informed two other regulars). IRWolfie- (talk) 20:00, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that, I really appreciate it! I think that from what I've seen - I'm not a regular so correct me if I'm wrong - either people are *so* tendentious about random non-content issues that they end up on an admin noticeboard, or they are arguing about content and becoming uncivil. I'm not sure that automatically forwarding non-content-related disputes to ANI is a good idea, but I have a sense that a lot of it really does come down to a dispute about content. Am I totally off-base? Do I need to go and read all the archives? (I just read what's on the page right now and I recognize that may not be representative...it was a busy morning) Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 20:54, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I think WQA does have a useful function at dealing with minor incidents which aren't related to content. A few examples: An editor is inappropriately correcting typos in another editors comments, inappropriate comments about another editor, inappropriate material on a user talkpage about another editor, inappropriate edit summaries about another editor. I think the simple cases do often get solved but anything slightly complex can descend into chaos. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:02, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm confused. Is this just about MedCom at this point, or about MedCom and WQA->DRN? Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:32, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I think it's about both but mostly MedCom? Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 20:54, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Just to go on the record, I'm opposed to WQA being merged into DRN if it means we're going to get mixed content/conduct disputes. Conduct DR can (and does) cure most conduct disputes by resolving the underlying content disputes. Frankly I see WQA as a place for them to blow off steam about the conduct while real work is being done in content DR. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:56, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

• Wow. I sleep for a few hours and look what happens? :) My personal opinion is that lowering the bar to require consensus, and not unanimity - is the minimally required change for this transition to a new dispute resolution system to work effectively. When I first created the dispute resolution noticeboard, I did it for two reasons, to act as a forum to resolve small and simple content issues and filter the rest elsewhere, and to act as a training ground - to get new blood into dispute resolution. It's definitely doing that, but disputes really only have DRN or RFC to go to at present, and a handful of disputes that were booted up to MedCom were accepted. However, volunteers at DRN are currently spread thin, and the page is currently very long - over 600k (I'll be looking into that and getting it down any way I can today, since I'm doing bugger all). Ideally, I'd like to see disputes resolved at DRN in 5 days - if the dispute is still open after 4 days, we will do an assessment of the dispute and possibly boot it up to MedCom. There's a lot of hardened mediators at MedCom, but as Xav notes, very few are active - this may be due to the lack of cases. I'm not sure about the merger of WQA into DRN - I think WQA just needs to be killed - but I think if I gather more data on its effectiveness, I can put a stronger case to the community to close it. Steven Zhang ^{Get involved in DR!} 22:22, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Proposal by Guy Macon

In my opinion, any reform of the DR process should start at the entry point, not with a higher level such as MedCom. A while back I was developing some new medical electronics and ended up working with a last-resort oncologist. basically he took the worst cases of cancer, and of course his success rate was very low. One thing he told me was this: While a new technique that helped him to do a better job was a good thing, looking at the big picture it would be far better to improve the screening process so more cancers get caught early. Doing that would lower his success rate because he would see fewer slow-growing cancers, while raising the success rate for cancer treatment as a whole.

I would like to see a unified front end for all dispute resolution that involves a triage -- having someone look at cases and advise the filer as to where to send them. I also think that the recent changes at WP:DRN need to be given time for evaluating and tweaking, after which we may have some nice tools and procedures that other DR forums might want to try. I don't think this is the right time for huge changes to well-established noticeboards like MedCom.

As for merging WQA into DRN, I would strongly oppose that. I think that having DRN look at article content rather that user conduct is a really good idea that is working well. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:44, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

• Totally agreed on that last point. WQA and DRN serve totally different purposes. Ironholds (talk) 20:08, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
• I think the two changes should be done at the same time (DRN changes and MedCom changes). It allows us to resolve the small stuff, but send the big fish to MedCom. I do think a form similar to the one used to make a request at DRN would work well here - it makes things simpler (filing a case) but can also provide barriers (ask questions like, "Has this been discussed at another dispute resolution forum" and if the answer is no, it can direct them to DRN or something. Eventually I'd love to see WP:DR as a brief explanation of what dispute resolution is, and a massive button "Request dispute resolution" which will filter cases depending on a bunch of variables. Steven Zhang ^{Get involved in DR!} 22:06, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
• DRN itself is a reform of the earlier stages of the process, so I can't really agree that we've jumped in at the wrong end on this one. AGK [•] 13:11, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

For and against lowering the bar to formal mediation

Wikipedia has never expected unanimity when forming decisions, and some good arguments have been put forward for allowing formal mediation proceedings to begin when a very small number of the parties have said they will not participate. I am willing to initiate a discussion with my colleagues about amending the Mediation Policy to accept these types of requests.

However, I would first like to take a sample of opinion on this page regarding this route. Please list your arguments against this amendment to our usual practice, or say that you support. (For my part, I will do both.) AGK [•] 16:37, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

1. Against: The Chairman will have to evaluate in each case whether the number of dissenting parties is so high that a consensus cannot be formed, which adds a significant element of discretion to what was always a primarily administrative role. (For my own part, I trust our Chair to competently assess this new dimension to our requests.) AGK [•] 16:43, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
2. The formal mediation process has many advantages over other processes, but (as has been correctly pointed out) needs updating to serve the community of 2012. Introducing an element of flexibility to our current requirement that 100% of parties agree to and participate in mediation is one step forward. I support. AGK [•] 16:43, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
3. For I think estimating the level of consensus for mediation can be done relatively easily. As pointed out above consensus has never required full agreement and it should be the same here. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:11, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
4. For. For cases that are iffy, the chair can bring it up on the mailing list. As it is, we typically have three people who accept/deny on behalf of the chair, anyway which may be a problem. I think there should also be a hard limit on how many people can reject before we automatically deny it. Like not more than 2. Also, we should probably add more clear options, so that people can reject because they don't have the time for the mediation, not because they think the mediation is a bad idea. There are other kinks to work out, too, like if someone rejects, should we allow them in the mediation? I think the answer should always be yes, but I'd be interested in others' thoughts. Xavexgoem (talk) 17:36, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

   • Actually, a party would practically need to be allowed in the mediation if they rejected. Otherwise, they'll certainly raise a fuss. They might still do that—and we would need a protocol for dealing with it—but we're not prohibiting them from any involvement.
   • Also, there will be plenty of cases where there's consensus but not unanimity and a case still shouldn't be accepted. That might be true for the majority of those cases. I hope that's clear to anyone considering this. I don't think this should apply for the larger cases (say >8 editors), but those are fairly uncommon.
   • It's worth pointing out that IAR always applied here, but after constantly, tediously denying, denying, denying, it may have escaped notice, or may have been seen as too risky. Xavexgoem (talk) 20:46, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

5. For - The members of the Mediation Committee are veteran Wikipedians who resolve the most complex of content disputes - I trust they are capable of assessing whether a request has consensus or not. Steven Zhang ^{Get involved in DR!} 18:30, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
6. For — I think the issue of consensus going into an acceptance decision is a false dichotomy. Editors who do not choose to participate often drop out of the dispute altogether. What needs to be assessed is whether the nonparticipating editor is going to be likely to attempt to continue to discuss the matter elsewhere or will just hide behind a log and wait to raise the dispute again if the mediation doesn't go his/her way. Most people who are actually passionate about a dispute and not merely trollish will find it difficult to watch the discussion continue in another venue without them. They may not come immediately, but they will usually either come in or disappear. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 22:15, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
7. For - It will need ironing out, of course, but I think it's workable. I do agree that we need a hard limit and that there are cases that should not be accepted even if that hard limit is not reached. The general idea is good. Details will happen. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 22:38, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
8. For - I think the case has been sufficiently articulated above. I would only add that if this change goes through, we'll need to seriously look at how to accommodate/include those editors who declined participation. Do we still encourage them to take part? I think yes, but we need to consider a tougher mechanism as a backup. Lord Roem (talk) 02:54, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
9. For. But I think if we have an environment where this sort of case is accepted, making DR binding is a necessary next step. Ironholds (talk) 10:29, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
10. For - Mediation should be able to proceed even if a few stubborn editors refuse to participate. Furthermore, after the mediation completes, those non-participants should not be able to block implementation of the resolution of the mediation. The latter point is critical. --Noleander (talk) 13:11, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

    Mediation without 1 party is like having a 1-leg horse in a race. The horse will not be quite successful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ebe123 (talk • contribs) 19:53, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

11. For; as things now stand, it is trivial to filibuster the mediation process; either by simply refusing to agree at the outset or being uncooperative during mediation itself – further wasting the mediators' and parties' time. I'm not worried about the implementation details; those are simple to hammer out once some experience has been acquired. — Coren ^(talk) 14:57, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
12. For acknowledging Noleander's point above is a very significant one and some way of addressing that issue, particularly regarding those who refuse to get involve and/or, potentially, meatpuppets or sockpuppets after the fact, is going to be required. John Carter (talk) 20:40, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
13. For, depending of course on the details. I like the idea of making it easier and quicker to try to end disputes. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:04, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
14. For: I think it's as much an issue of quality and quantity. If someone can honestly show that some other process should be tried first, I think that should be given a lot of weight against commencing mediation. If someone says "I don't want to because I refuse to negotiate with anyone", I think they've done more to persuade me that mediation should continue, and that they should be specifically excluded. More people would participate in mediation (in good faith) if the cost of participating were eclipsed by the cost of not participating. Reward those who are willing to work towards solving a dispute, and punish stubborn editors with the threat of exclusion. Shooterwalker (talk) 04:15, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
15. For: Too easy to game the mediation process by being uncooperative. Let MedCom decide rather than handcuffing them. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:15, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
16. For: If all MedCom sees are the cases that are impossible to solve, of course they're going to fail. Give them more leeway. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 05:25, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
17. For; per Coren, Guy Macon, &c. bobrayner (talk) 18:27, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
18. For per the users whom Bobrayner has said right above. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 19:53, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
19. For per Coren, Guy Macon et al. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 21:31, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

    And I would note, that I specifically endorse the Noleander's idea of binding content dispute resolution with specific provisions for enforcing mediation result on users who willingly avoided participation. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 01:14, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

20. For per above --Guerillero | My Talk 21:26, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Comments

We are currently obligated to deny requests for mediation regardless of the reject. All of these would fail RfM:

• Accept, I think this will help us out. --Jane Doe 5:32, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
• Reject, Jane Doe is wrong, so this is pointless. --Mr. X 5:34, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

---

• Accept, I hope this will help us deal with our sourcing dispute. --President Jefferson 6:21, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
• Reject, President Carter refuses to accept the fact that his sources are wrong/synth/unreliable --President Nixon 6:23, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
• Accept, I think there's a case to be made for President Jefferson's interpretation --President Lincoln 7:00, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
• Accept, I agree with Lincoln above. Nixon, could you please be more civil? --President Roosevelt 6:43, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

---

• Accept --Red Fish 1:29 31 July 2012 (UTC)
• Reject, this is just another attempt by Red Fish to drag out this dispute in the hope that she'll come out on top --Blue Fish 1:30, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

---

• Accept --Mr. Blonde 10:10, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
• Accept --Mr. Pink 10:11, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
• Accept --Mr. Orange 10:12, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
• Accept --Mr. Blue 10:13, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
• Accept --Mr. White 10:14, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
• Reject, unnecessary at this time --Mr. Brown 10:15, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Coren isn't kidding when he says it's trivial to filibuster mediation. --Xavexgoem (talk) 08:41, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

• So...about the above discussion on lowering the bar for case acceptance, it seems so far there's unanimous support. What's next? I suppose there will be an internal discussion about implementation details, or are we still waiting for more comments from the community? Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 12:12, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

• Again, as much as I don't think one or two people should be able to filibuster mediation, I also don't think that a consensus of editors should be able to force a dispute into mediation. I'm probably stating the obvious, but just make sure that other options have been tried and mediation seems like a necessary next step. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:08, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Yep, MEDCOM needs to look out for frivolous requests which don't have consensus for being at MEDCOM for obvious reasons. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:54, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

The whole point of that policy is that if everyone isn't on board with mediation, then there's not much reason to go forward with it. Mediation isn't a binding judgement. There's nothing stopping the unwilling party from continuing the dispute even if all the other parties come to a mediated resolution. Gigs (talk) 19:11, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

If a disputant refuse to use mediation and other methods of dispute resolution (including talk page discussion), then prima facie their conduct is disruptive. I rarely see a dispute where a party objects to mediation because of some qualm with the process itself, but often a dissenting disputant simply thinks it indisputable that they are correct.

Mediation can reasonably be refused because the content in question is directly governed by some policy (so no debate is necessary), or because little or no talk page debate has taken place; in cases such as these, then the Mediation Committee would refuse to provide mediation anyway. AGK [•] 20:25, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

If mediation is refused because one party is categorically incorrect in the face of policy, then the mediation refusal should make that clear. Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Geocode. Here is an example. I understand that it's temping to be more diplomatic, but sometimes someone just needs to be told on no uncertain terms that the policy is clearly against them. Gigs (talk) 13:55, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Is it time to end formal mediation?

A draft policy to implement certain outcomes from these discussions has been written. Please skip to this section to read more.

I attended a session at Wikimania with the "fellows" wherein the each presented their findings from the past year. The schedule was a bit screwy, apparently this rejected submission was rolled into this panel discussion.

The point is, during the section on DR it was mentioned that during the fellowship tenure formal mediation's success rate was a rather alarming 0%. I think perhaps it is time to reconsider the wisdom of continuing to have formal mediation if the results are this poor. I don't mean to insinuate that there is anything wrong with the fine people who put their time and energy into this process, it just doesn't seem to work. My guess is that by the time a dispute gets here any kind of chance for agreement or compromise is already out the window and this has become more of a stepping stone to ArbCom than a functional part of our dispute resolution mechanisms. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:55, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I think that it's only appropriate that I comment here - I'm the one that's done the research on dispute resolution in my role as a fellow, and I came up with this statistic. So, to clarify, the 0% result came from an analysis of disputes at MedCom that were either filed or closed in May 2012. Only 7 were at MedCom, 4 were outright rejected and the other three that were open in May were closed as unsuccessful. It appears that the last successful mediation was Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Draza_Mihailovic - closed on 4 September 2011, and since that time MedCom has had 51 requests for mediation (that I can see), ten of which were accepted, and two are currently open. In May, the three open cases were open for an average of 29.6 days, and none of them were successfully resolved (as described on the case pages). The DR survey results on effectiveness according to the respondents rated RFM as poor by 29%, mediocre by 23%, average by 25%, good by 20% and excellent by 3%.

Now, all these figures don't necessarialy mean that MedCom is bad, it may just indicate that once a dispute reaches RFM it's too late. The high amount of rejected cases may indicate one of two things - either that the bar for acceptance is too high, or it's too easy to file a case at RFM when it should be looked at somewhere like DRN. I don't think MedCom should be closed, but as I have mentioned to medcom-l before, I think some change could be of benefit. I just wanted to make it clear as to how I reached my conclusions. The purpose of outlining these stats is because the trend showed that the further a content dispute went up the DR chain, the less likely it was to be successfully resolved. Regards, Steven Zhang ^{Get involved in DR!} 22:43, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

It was 0% for the month of May. 99.149.231.106 (talk) 13:11, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Comment - I only participated in mediation once, involving about a dozen persons. After about a month of hard work by all participants, including the mediator, a good compromise was achieved. The participants attempted to implement the solution in the article, but two editors who had refused to participate in the mediation rejected it, explaining that it was non-binding and that they objected to it. Their position was entirely consistent with WP policies. For over a month, these two watched a dozen editors work in a collegial and collaborative fashion, then they sabotaged all the work. Since then, I've declined to participate in any mediation. The solution, in my opinion, is not to entirely eliminate mediation, but instead:

1. WP needs a binding mediation/arbitration process: think of it as an ArbCom for content issues.
2. Mediation/arbitration resolutions would be binding for only 6 months or a year (not forever).
3. The resolution would be binding only if there are three or more mediators/arbitrators and if a majority of them concur with the resolution.
4. Mediators/arbitrators would be uninvolved, trusted editors, ideally with significant content-creation experience.
5. Generally, the resolution should originate with the participants (subject matter experts) not the arbitrators, but the latter could suggest compromises.
6. Notification would be through normal WP channels: article Talk pages, project notifications, notifications to editors that edited the article (or its Talk page) in a significant way, RfC creation, DRN creation, WP centralized discussions, etc.
7. Parties that refused to participate in the mediation/arbitration would not be able to block implementation of the resolution.
8. Parties that participate must do so in good faith and not hold to tendentious/uncooperative positions.
9. The mediators/arbititrators would be able to adopt a resolution that tendentious/uncooperative participants do not agree to (thus, unanimous concurrence is not required).
10. Non-binding mediation/arbitration would still be available, of course, within the existing Mediation Cabal, or folded into the WP:Dispute resolution noticeboard.
11. Binding mediation/arbitration could continue within the existing mediation framework; or integrated with WP:Dispute resolution noticeboard or RfC process.. There is no need to create a new framework for this.

My 2 cents. --Noleander (talk) 14:01, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Note - The above bullet list above was amended to include points discussed below; and also re-formatted. --Noleander (talk) 14:55, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

• • I am not opposed to the idea of some sort of binding mediation, so long binding means the agreement that the parties themselves reach, not some sort of Content Committee decision. -- Lord Roem (talk) 15:27, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

My idea is that: (1) parties that refused to participate in the mediation/arbitration would not be able to block implementation of the resolution; (2) Parties that participate must do so in good faith and not hold to tendentious/uncooperative positions; and (3) The mediators would be able to endorse a resolution (that originated with the participants, not the mediators) that tendentious/uncooperative participants do not agree to. That latter point is why this hypothetical binding process should perhaps be called "arbitration" rather than "mediation". --Noleander (talk) 17:57, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Interesting idea. In this scenario, would this "binding mediation" bind editors who weren't in the mediation, but still want to edit the article? How would the mediators ensure that every possible viewpoint is included in the process? -- Lord Roem (talk) 20:49, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the resolution would be binding on all editors, for 6 months or a year. Ensuring that all viewpoints are represented would be done through normal WP processes: (a) notification on article Talk pages; (b) notification to projects; (c) notifications to editors that worked on the article(s) in question; and perhaps: (d) RfC creation; (e) DRN notification; and (f) WP centralized discussion. Think of it this way: it is a formal Mediation/RfC/DRN, which lasts for a month and is decided by a committee of 3 uninvolved, trusted, experienced arbitrators. The resolution would only be binding if 2 of the 3 arbitrators concurred with the resolution. --Noleander (talk) 14:41, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I updated the bullet list above to include these additional thoughts (that way, all the concepts are co-located). --Noleander (talk) 15:05, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks to Steven for clarifying matters and my apologies for not letting him know I was planning to cite him here, luckily he figured it out anyway. So, what we have here is a process that has not succesfully resolved an issue in the last ten months. That's actually a bit worse that I had thought. The idea of binding mediation is not without merit, but I'm not so sure the community will go for that unless the selection process for the mediators is roughly equivalent to the selection of ArbCom members. If we give this process more teeth it is going to need more community involvement in the selection process as well. Checks and balances and all that. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:35, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
  • I think Noleander strikes the right note. Reforms and changes to the process, on a structural level, is far preferable than the arbitrary closure of an 8-year Committee. We have successes and failures, and yes maybe a great deal of failures, but I feel we need to be careful in how we approach this. We are touching a pretty big issue - how do we resolve content disputes on Wikipedia. Let's keep the perspective of the importance there in moving forward with this discussion. But it is a discussion I'm willing to have. Lord Roem (talk) 20:49, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Not sure why you think this proposal is arbitrary. It is based on the poor performance of this process, as established by data. I don't have anything against the idea or the people who volunteer here, but it seems like a waste of resources if the success rate is so low. As I hinted before, I think this is less to do with the process itself and more to do with the fact that by the time a dispute ends up here many involved parties will be so firmly entrenched in their positions that coming to an acceptable compromise is nearly impossible no matter how skilled and patient the mediators are. However if we can find a way to make the process more effective instead of simply doing away with it that would be great. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:58, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that is what I'm trying to get at. But the devil's in the details. -- Lord Roem (talk) 21:05, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

In the course of that month we had 4 cases, I believe. Other DR boards had much greater volume. We deal with very difficult nationalist and religious disputes, and some other nearly-intractable problems. Many of them went through lower DR boards before coming to MedCom, so there goes the idea of dissolving MedCom as ineffective. But what to do about that all this? I don't know, but involving ArbCom seems like a huge and ugly step backwards. Any binding solution must (I can't say this loudly enough: MUST) be via party compromise, never ever imposed by a committee. Frankly, I'm more interested in how we can deal with conduct issues during mediation, since that's (at least for me) the bigger issue. We can rarely go to AN/I if something crops up. Xavexgoem (talk) 19:27, 23 July 2012 (UTC) Also, I was the IP above. Didn't log in, apparently

(As an aside: Xavexgoem and John Carter both responded as if someone had proposed that the ArbCom get involved - but nowhere above was ArbCom suggeseted as a solution. The prior discussions only suggested an ArbCom-like group to mediate content disputes.) --Noleander (talk) 20:45, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

+1. Pulled right from my own mind. I think this RfC would be much more useful if it was expanded in scope to the issues raised above. As I said before, this is some difficult stuff. But, this provides a perfect opportunity to have these discussions... and we must have these discussions in any debate over our DR process. -- Lord Roem (talk) 19:46, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

RfC comment from one of those, um, persons, most frequently involved in religious issues which become intractable. Dunno what that says about me, but it probably isn't good. Anyway, ArbCom is good for what it does, but I don't think it is cut out for binding discussion on content. This group as it exists may have problems, but we do need some sort of content mediation and adjudication body as well. I remember one of the processes ArbCom used in the rather messy Macedonia naming dispute case was to have a group of highly regarded editors volunteer to be, basically, a tribunal to decide the issue of the Macedonia naming question for a short time. I would prefer avoiding that final step as much as possible, but maybe having, as a final outcome, some sort of independent tribunal decide a question the parties can't agree on themselves might make mediation efforts easier. I doubt many people want the question taken entirely out of their hands, as such a tribunal does, so I think it might make them a bit more inclined to be mediatable if they were to know that, if they refuse to compromise, the matter might be taken out of their hands entirely. Just a thought, anyway, from someone who does bloody little in this area except take sides on issues like this. John Carter (talk) 20:10, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

In other words, the possibility of content arbitration might encourage editors to make more of an effort in mediation? That sounds like an argument for content arbitration as an additional step between mediation and full arbitration, perhaps available only in the event of failed mediation. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 20:43, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

The Macedonia example is spot-on. My point is: Why should that "tribunal" process be so ad hoc? Why not formalize it? Simply enhance one of our existing processes (mediation, RfCs, DRN, etc) so a small group of trusted, uninvolved editors can resolve content disputes. --Noleander (talk) 20:47, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Noleander, I think this needs to be said: even if some members of the Mediation Committee and the DR community agree to this idea in principle (which it appears some of us actually do), I'm not sure how receptive the rest of the WP community would be to anything approaching "Content" and "Committee". I don't want to shoot this down with just that idea, but we need to keep some perspective when discussing such a major change to the process. -- Lord Roem (talk) 20:52, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I know that it would not be a popular idea. The only reason I'm spending any time on the proposal is because S. Zhang is engaging in a long-term effort to improve and streamline the dispute resolution process, so I figure it is worth throwing out some ideas. Also, I've seen too many situations where two POV groups are arguing over an article, and the article ends up in an ugly condition ... when a sensible outsider could often, usually within 15 minutes, find a decent middle ground. --Noleander (talk) 20:58, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

A policy to permit some form of binding content DR has been proposed and taken before the community several times before and has failed so often that it could be regarded to be one of those perennially-suggested changes which have no chance of success. Not that some of us aren't willing to keep trying. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:59, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I hear ya. Hmm. What are your thoughts on some sort of 'pilot test' of whatever method we agree on? Some sort of community-approved test-run of binding mediation, just like the Abortion titles RfC or the 'tribunal' you discuss above? The idea with this being we write up a plan for a long-term implementation of this change, ask the community to support its application for one case before MedCom, and then see whether there's support for implementing this on a continued basis. So... your thoughts? -- Lord Roem (talk) 21:04, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that sounds like a good idea: draft a process, then pick an active content dispute from Armenian genocide, or creationism, or abortion, etc, and try it out. I'm not too familiar with S. Zhang's charter, but I believe he has a mission to look into things like that, so maybe he should be involved. Otherwise, we may have overlapping efforts underway, which would not be efficient, and would diminish the appeal of this proposal to the wider community. --Noleander (talk) 21:12, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

If I might make a proposal, I personally would like to have any such proposal include also having some editors, involved or not, go through the relevant reference books, like encyclopedias, which might have content on the subject. I personally think a fair number of mediation efforts might be more easily resolved with such a conscious review of reference sources, and that doing so might also make it easier for the involved editors to resolve the matters involved themselves, short of a tribunal. John Carter (talk) 21:44, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

@Noleander, the scope of my fellowship has been to research and identify problems with the dispute resolution processes - I've done that and my results can be found in the DR survey - I'm now at the stage where I'm trying to get change to happen - starting with DRN. The last time a binding content process was proposed, (WP:BCD - by me) it was turned down by the community - and this was a community oriented process - similar to an RFC. The idea of a content committee I think will always be shot down, for the sole reason that it takes the matter of deciding content out of the hands of the community - and they don't like that. An RFC format would be a better way to structure such a process - the old proposal can always be worked on and resubmitted to the community. I need to be somewhat careful to make the lines between my actions as a contractor of the WMF and my actions as a volunteer clear. It can work to my benefit however - because of my extensive involvement with dispute resolution over the years, this isn't something random that I've done in my capacity as a fellow - the fellowship has aided me to research the processes and get data that support my hypothesis - that we need change. I'll be hosting an office hour this coming Saturday, 19:00UTC in #wikimedia-office. You can find corresponding timezone info at this page. But yeah, this all needs community input. I plan a multi-faceted approach. Steven Zhang ^{Get involved in DR!} 22:01, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I was not aware of the WP:BCD proposal ... it looks fine by me. It satisfies my recommendation that we not invent a new process/group, but instead evolve an existing process (RfC, DRN, Mediation) and simply formalize the notion of "closing with prejudice". Many RfCs ask for a closing admin via the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure process. When an admin closes such an RfC, it is virtually binding for several months - and yet the WP:RFC process contains no mention of this method of formally closing the RfC by an uninvolved person. One could say that WP already has a semi-binding closure process, but won't admit it. It appears that there are three ways to move forward: (1) enhance one of the mediation processes more structured & binding; (2) enhance the RfC process (similar to BCD proposal); or (3) enhance the DRN process. I take it from your (SZ) comments that you are leaning towards enhancing DRN. That's fine. I'll just keep by eyes and ears open and participate when I can. --Noleander (talk) 00:21, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

At the moment, my focus at present is on growing the pool of volunteers, and improving the success rate of DRN - currently just under 50%. I'm working on this in a few ways, creating a wizard that makes it easier to file disputes, a guide for new volunteers to assist with disputes and a set of guidelines for handling disputes. I've got other plans as well, but I want to take it one step at a time. Now that we're here though, I think that change at MedCom is needed, and definitely needs to be discussed. See my comments further below. Steven Zhang ^{Get involved in DR!} 02:01, 25 July 2012 (UTC)`

• Meh. If I had to make an oppose or support with a gun pointed at my head, I'd say that I support the shut-down because MedCab does more and is more open to actually doing it when it needs to be done. (Full disclosure: I'm one of the current coordinators at MedCab.) But I don't see that the continued existence of MedCom does any real harm, on the other hand and, thus, meh. As for binding content dispute resolution, my proposal has been here for quite awhile. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:33, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

• I have a few ideas that could improve MedCom, streamline dispute resolution and reduce the amount of hopeless cases that are filed here. DRN could act as the entry point for disputes, and if the dispute after five days of discussion (proper discussion, not just sporadic one without input) a resolution has not been achieved, it could be filed at MedCom and the other requirements for acceptance (except agreement by parties - but I still think unanimous agreement is unwise) could be waived. MedCom has a bunch of hardened, experienced mediators, but many disputes by the time they get here the Dalai Lama himself could not resolve - and I think it's because it takes so long for a dispute to actually get here. Let's do something about that, shall we? (Though I'd be more in favour of mediators here helping out at DRN so they /can/ get resolved at DRN :-) Steven Zhang ^{Get involved in DR!} 21:47, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the notion of mediators helping with DRN: I'll mention my suggestion (made a couple of months ago, elsewhere) that we try to consolidate the multiple lists of volunteers: (1) WP:Feedback request service, (2) WP:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Volunteering‎, (3) WP:Mediation Committee/Members, and (4) WP:Mediation_Cabal/Volunteers. I know there are some arguable differences between the roles, but there is plenty of commonality: experienced editors that are willing to pitch-in and help resolve content disputes in a unbaised manner. A side benefit of consolidating these pools of volunteers that that they would be involved with the various DR processes (RfC, mediation, DRN) and that would naturally lead to simplification/consolidation of those multiple processes. --Noleander (talk) 00:32, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

From my check, it looks like the last successful attempt at mediation from MedCom was Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Hooke's Law, about a year ago. And looking at all the outright rejected requests or outright failed attempts at mediation, less than 5% cases get accepted, and less than 1% will result in a successful mediation. It looks like zero progress ever gets made when these disputes get sent here. Perhaps the standards for acceptance are too high, or even because of the above suggestion that decisions are not binding. However, in the case of the latter, that is the difference between mediation and arbitration (in general terms, not necessarily MedCom and ArbCom), that mediation merely facilitates conflict resolution among the disputing parties themselves, while arbitration results in enforceable resolution steps as determined by an arbitrator and not through said parties.

I think the problem tends to be multiple-pronged: Some disputes simply cannot be mediated because nobody wants to lose their ground or their position, or they simply will not back down towards a negotiatory stance. Other times, disputants feel a need for something authoritative from on high (i.e. a "ruling" from someone in authority), which is more within the purview of arbitration. Finally, in many other cases, it's just a matter of classic battleground mentality, where it's all about one side winning and the other side losing. --MuZemike 01:05, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

All very true, although see Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/New_antisemitism. It can happen.

MedCom is in a weird position. We're ostensibly the greatest content DR process, but we get the hardest cases and some of the worst edit warriors. We also get less room to maneuver than other DR forums because of our privileged nature. We're not afforded much latitude. Not that the privileged nature should go away, but our ability to handle conduct issues (like battleground mentalities, unwavering/tendentious stances) is practically 0 for those issues that can't be resolved through talk. I think I've mentioned this before: one idea is if the committee-as-a-whole could act as a sort of administrator for some of the worst cases. We can't go to AN/I nor exercise admin rights besides housekeeping. Xavexgoem (talk) 10:12, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I like this idea, actually, if there would be some way to define it in a usable way. I suppose, for worst-case-scenarios, maybe there could be some sort of general call to "mediators" to actively review a subject in such a way that those "mediators" who had not previously been involved in mediating the topic in question could count among those individuals determining WP:CONSENSUS relative to a given topic? John Carter (talk) 16:00, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

• I think we can all agree that Formal Mediation as currently constructed is ineffective. Echoing Noleander, I'd argue that what is needed is binding content mediation, akin to ArbCom for behavioral issues, but directed towards content. There needs to be a mechanism to toss POV warriors from a page and to establish an NPOV version. I'm not sure that blowing up the current Mediation Committee is the way to get there. Carrite (talk) 00:09, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

"Blowing up MedCom" does sound a bit drastic. That is why I look at it another way: WP has only a small number of experienced, neutral volunteers who are willing to help out with content disputes. But those volunteers are spread out across MedCom, MedCab, RfCs, & DRN. Suspending one or two of those forums, although painful, could prompt all the volunteers to work together in the remaining forums (DRN & RfC?), and eventually lead to more success & happiness. --Noleander (talk) 04:47, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

• Suspend MedCom? Hmm...I dunno. I'd like to simplify the transition of requests from DRN to MedCom, but lowering standards of acceptance here is step one. Steven Zhang ^{Get involved in DR!} 00:31, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Proposal (and rambling thoughts) by Keilana

Proposal by TransporterMan

Proposal by Xavexgoem

Proposal by Guy Macon

In my opinion, any reform of the DR process should start at the entry point, not with a higher level such as MedCom. A while back I was developing some new medical electronics and ended up working with a last-resort oncologist. basically he took the worst cases of cancer, and of course his success rate was very low. One thing he told me was this: While a new technique that helped him to do a better job was a good thing, looking at the big picture it would be far better to improve the screening process so more cancers get caught early. Doing that would lower his success rate because he would see fewer slow-growing cancers, while raising the success rate for cancer treatment as a whole.

I would like to see a unified front end for all dispute resolution that involves a triage -- having someone look at cases and advise the filer as to where to send them. I also think that the recent changes at WP:DRN need to be given time for evaluating and tweaking, after which we may have some nice tools and procedures that other DR forums might want to try. I don't think this is the right time for huge changes to well-established noticeboards like MedCom.

As for merging WQA into DRN, I would strongly oppose that. I think that having DRN look at article content rather that user conduct is a really good idea that is working well. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:44, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

• Totally agreed on that last point. WQA and DRN serve totally different purposes. Ironholds (talk) 20:08, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
• I think the two changes should be done at the same time (DRN changes and MedCom changes). It allows us to resolve the small stuff, but send the big fish to MedCom. I do think a form similar to the one used to make a request at DRN would work well here - it makes things simpler (filing a case) but can also provide barriers (ask questions like, "Has this been discussed at another dispute resolution forum" and if the answer is no, it can direct them to DRN or something. Eventually I'd love to see WP:DR as a brief explanation of what dispute resolution is, and a massive button "Request dispute resolution" which will filter cases depending on a bunch of variables. Steven Zhang ^{Get involved in DR!} 22:06, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
• DRN itself is a reform of the earlier stages of the process, so I can't really agree that we've jumped in at the wrong end on this one. AGK [•] 13:11, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

For and against lowering the bar to formal mediation

Comments

We are currently obligated to deny requests for mediation regardless of the reject. All of these would fail RfM:

• Accept, I think this will help us out. --Jane Doe 5:32, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
• Reject, Jane Doe is wrong, so this is pointless. --Mr. X 5:34, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

---

• Accept, I hope this will help us deal with our sourcing dispute. --President Jefferson 6:21, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
• Reject, President Carter refuses to accept the fact that his sources are wrong/synth/unreliable --President Nixon 6:23, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
• Accept, I think there's a case to be made for President Jefferson's interpretation --President Lincoln 7:00, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
• Accept, I agree with Lincoln above. Nixon, could you please be more civil? --President Roosevelt 6:43, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

---

• Accept --Red Fish 1:29 31 July 2012 (UTC)
• Reject, this is just another attempt by Red Fish to drag out this dispute in the hope that she'll come out on top --Blue Fish 1:30, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

---

• Accept --Mr. Blonde 10:10, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
• Accept --Mr. Pink 10:11, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
• Accept --Mr. Orange 10:12, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
• Accept --Mr. Blue 10:13, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
• Accept --Mr. White 10:14, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
• Reject, unnecessary at this time --Mr. Brown 10:15, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Coren isn't kidding when he says it's trivial to filibuster mediation. --Xavexgoem (talk) 08:41, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

• So...about the above discussion on lowering the bar for case acceptance, it seems so far there's unanimous support. What's next? I suppose there will be an internal discussion about implementation details, or are we still waiting for more comments from the community? <foglkkrקnt face="Verdana">Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 12:12, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

• Again, as much as I don't think one or two people should be able to filibuster mediation, I also don't think that a consensus of editors should be able to force a dispute into mediation. I'm probably stating the obvious, but just make sure that other options have been tried and mediation seems like a necessary next step. Shooterwalker ([[User talk:Shooterwalfg5g52A02:ED0:43D8:8F00:3DF6:991B:2F62:4D5A (talk) 16:01, 13 March 2018 (UTC)k]]) 17:08, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Yep, MEDCOM needs to look out for frivolous requests which don't have consensus for being at MEDCOM for obvious reasons. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:54, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

The whole point of that policy is that if everyone isn't on board with mediation, then there's not much reason to go forward with it. Mediation isn't a binding judgement. There's nothing stopping the unwilling party from continuing the dispute even if all the other parties come to a mediated resolution. Gigs (talk) 19:11, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

If a disputant refuse to use mediation and other methods of dispute resolution (including talk page discussion), then prima facie their conduct is disruptive. I rarely see a dispute where a party objects to mediation because of some qualm with the process itself, but often a dissenting disputant simply thinks it indisputable that they are correct.

Mediation can reasonably be refused because the content in question is directly governed by some policy (so no debate is necessary), or because little or no talk page debate has taken place; in cases such as these, then the Mediation Committee would refuse to provide mediation anyway. AGK [•] 20:25, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

If mediation is refused because one party is categorically incorrect in the face of policy, then the mediation refusal should make that clear. Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Geocode. Here is an example. I understand that it's temping to be more diplomatic, but sometimes someone just needs to be told on no uncertain terms that the policy is clearly against them. Gigs (talk) 13:55, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Insert non-formatted text here