Wikipedia talk:Mediation Committee/Policy/Archive 1

Suggested copy edit

This new policy is a great improvement! One small thought: The phrase "Forced participation jars with the nature of the mediation process ..." may be hard to understand for non-native-English speakers, because the word "jars" is a bit arcane. Maybe change "jars" to "conflicts" or "is incompatible"? --Noleander (talk) 00:33, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words about the policy, and for your suggestion. I have replaced jars with is incompatible. If you think of other potential improvements, I would be keen to hear them. Regards, AGK [•] 17:54, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

What does this part of the policy mean?

I have a question about the part where it says this:

"Mediation requires compromise by all parties. Mediation has the same difficulties as editorial debate and discussion, and therefore cannot be successful without a shared receptiveness to compromise among the disputants."

Does this mean that there can never be a case where one side is correct and the other wrong; does it assert that, even before looking at the facts of any particular case, we go into each case pre-convinced that, whenever two parties are in dispute, the correct solution is going to always lie somewhere in the middle? If so, how do we know that this will always be true in all cases? Shouldn't mediators go into disputes with their minds open to the possiblity that one side could be right and the other wrong? I mean, it does happen sometimes, doesn't it? Chrisrus (talk) 05:25, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Sure, that scenario can happen. I read that text as suggesting that the parties need to go into mediation with the attitude that they may need to compromise. I don't read that text as stating that the final resolution must require compromise by all parties. You do have a good point though: that first sentence is a bit misleading, whereas the second sentence is more precise. Maybe the first sentence could be eliminated? Or changed to "Mediation requires a willingness to compromise by all parties." (bold emphasis shows added words). --Noleander (talk) 14:02, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Suppose a person is open to compromises on the condition that they would constitute article improvement? Chrisrus (talk) 15:02, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

The question posed by Chrisrus suggests a common usage of the word "compromise" that I think we need to clarify. I am therefore proposing a change to the wording of the policy (see next section). Sunray (talk) 05:30, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

There are many things we should ask them to commit to, including:

• The rules of etiquette
• To focus on the edits and ideas, not the person or personalities
• To bow to evidence and reason
• To use only evidence and reason
• To abide by the principles of good argumentation and rhetoric
• To allow no “conflict resolution” or compromise to stand in the way of article improvement.
• To do their best Mr. Spock imitation at all times.
• To allow ideas to battle it out in cyberspace, not people.
• To serve The Reader
• To serve The Project
• To protect living people from needless harm

"To compromise" is not one of these. Chrisrus (talk) 20:46, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree. It is very easy to try to look wise and fair by splitting the difference between two points of view and calling that the right answer. As Chrisrus says above, we must use evidence and reason to decide who is write, in paritcular the proper use of reliable sources. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:10, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

The mediation policy states as a principle that "Mediation will not yield an illegitimate result", so I am entirely unconvinced that it is reasonable to hold such a concern. However, since we appear to have resurrected a discussion that is almost exactly one year old, if you wish to discuss this could we please do so in a new thread? AGK [•] 16:52, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

I just thought that Chrisrus made a very good point but I have no desire to restart and old argument so I will drop the subject. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:58, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Proposed change to "Principles" section

I have a concern with the aspects of the policy that set compromise as a principle, such as the following:

"Mediation builds compromise and obtains consensus.."

"Mediation requires compromise by all parties..."

Compromise usually involves making a concession or giving something up. It seems to me that this is not usually the aim of a consensus process. The term "compromise" is defined in a somewhat different way in WP:CON, which states: "Seek a compromise means "attempt to find a generally acceptable solution." Seeking a generally acceptable solution is a collaborative process.This can be a win/win process for participants, rather than a win/lose. Collaborative conflict resolution has been a significant trend in mediation in recent years and is entirely consistent with consensus decision-making. Thus, it seems preferable to reflect this in our principles. I propose the following changes (in italics):

"Mediation seeks consensus through collaborative approaches. Mediators guide a dispute, using discussion, to find a generally acceptable solution..."

"Mediation requires collaboration by all parties. Mediation has the same difficulties as editorial debate and discussion, and therefore cannot be successful without a shared receptiveness to come to an agreement among the disputants.

Comments? Sunray (talk) 05:30, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I was slightly uncomfortable with the "requires compromise by all parties" line, although my concerns were tempered by "mediation will not yield an illegitimate result". I think changing "compromise" to "collaboration" is an improvement, but "consensus through collaborative approaches" seems redundant. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 05:49, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

So would you suggest striking that phrase, as above? Sunray (talk) 17:55, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm thinking "Mediation is a means of seeking consensus", with "compromise" changed to "conclusion" in the description after the bold text. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 18:37, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Revised proposal

The text for those principles, with Feezo's suggested modifications to the first one, would now read:

Mediation seeks is a means of seeking consensus. Mediators guide a dispute, using discussion, to a sensible compromise conclusion. The aim of mediation is to achieve a solution to which all the disputants consent. Mediators do not adjudicate disputes.

Mediation requires collaboration by all parties. Mediation has the same difficulties as editorial debate and discussion, and therefore cannot be successful without a shared receptiveness to come to an agreement among disputants.

So that is the current proposal for the wording of those two principles. I will ping MedCom participants. Sunray (talk) 18:22, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

• Support. This looks like a useful clarification. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 01:07, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support. In most cases, but not necessarily all, mediation involves compromise, and in this context, I'm ok with the proposed change. PhilKnight (talk) 08:57, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support. I would still say "...to a sensible conclusion", but I'm okay with it either way. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 09:10, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Yes, I had intended to make that change. Hope I've got it right this time. Sunray (talk) 18:31, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support. While I unconditionally support the first chance, I am more sceptical of the reduced emphasis on compromise that is brought about by the second change. The policy makes excessive reference to "compromise" by design, and the second proposal pretty much undermines that. Still, all of these changes are okay. AGK [•] 20:29, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support per AGK. I'm not entirely in agreement with the reasons stated for this change, and am neither supporting nor opposing those reasons by this !vote, but I'm okay with the words. — TransporterMan (TALK) 15:23, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support Yes, we must allow that not all should result in compromise. Chrisrus (talk) 19:19, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Seeking a compromise

AGK and TransporterMan have indicated support but have each expressed a concern. If I read AGK right, they are pointing out that WP:CON refers to "compromise" as part of the design (in the section "Reaching consensus through discussion" and shown in the graphic) for getting consensus. Compromise is defined in the policy (see graphic footer) as "Seek a compromise means attempt to find a generally acceptable solution." It seems to me that asking participants to seek a compromise (noun) differs markedly from asking them "to compromise" (verb). From the comments, I think that we are on the right track by requiring participants to strive for a higher bar than to compromise, (i.e., by asking them to collaborate). However, due to the use of the term "compromise" in the policy, perhaps we should re-instate the phrase "Mediators guide a dispute, using discussion to a sensible compromise" in the first statement of principle, above. Would that address the concerns? Sunray (talk) 16:59, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

In the absence of a response to this potential revision, I've made the changes suggested in the revised proposal. Sunray (talk) 04:15, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant compromise by my design. In other words, I deliberately made the policy emphasise that compromise is the objective of mediation. However, I think you make a good point that collaboration, not mere compromise, is the ultimate objective of mediation; and (as a belated vote on this follow-up proposal) I agree with your change. Thanks for tying this up. AGK [•] 20:24, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Chrisrus (talk) 19:19, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

"This third party, the mediator, co-ordinates the discussion by exploring arguments and suggesting a compromise."

Given the above, shouldn't this sentence be edited in the same way? Chrisrus (talk) 19:23, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely. We missed that. Also, frequent mention of "compromise" remains in other portions of the policy. Principled (or interest-based) dispute resolution avoids compromise (which is usually interpreted as each side giving something up). The usual approach is to shift away from positions to interests and find a solution that meets common interests. I will take another look at the policy in light of the wording in WP policy as well as generally accepted principles of negotiation and mediation. Sunray (talk) 15:47, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Evidently I didn't get around to this back in September 2013. So I propose to edit the full policy now to reflect the above discussion and agreements. Sunray (talk) 20:26, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Off-wiki communication

I raised this before and there was agreement about the principles that applied. Now all we seem to have is

Mediation will primarily take place on the "Wikipedia talk:" page of the mediation case information page and its subpages, and not elsewhere on the project. Limited discussion about the case may take place outside of Wikipedia at the mediator's sole discretion, but mediation proceedings must only take place on the case talk pages. Communications outside of Wikipedia is subject to all rules governing off-wiki communication, including emails.

What exactly does, 'Limited discussion about the case may take place outside of Wikipedia at the mediator's sole discretion...', mean. Does it mean, for example, that the mediator can require a party to communicate with them off-wiki? Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:47, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Any off-wiki participation would be voluntary for each participant. Sunray (talk) 18:33, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

But will a participant be penalised in any way for declining off-wiki discussion. Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:01, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

In short, no. I don't believe the policy suggests they would be, it is fair to assume that the policy would have to explicitly provide for such a penalising, and I don't believe we ever would penalise a disputant in such a way. Mediation is no different from the rest of Wikipedia in that it does not require the use of off-wiki communication by any editor. AGK [•] 20:26, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I think the policy needs to make this explicit, as it did previously. It certainly did happen that participants were put under pressure and criticised for not wishing to take part in off-wiki discussion. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:55, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

What specific change in the wording do you propose? Sunray (talk) 01:22, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I would like to see the wording used in this policy previously restored. I am not sure why it was removed. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:27, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

This is the wording that I would like restored:

Parties may decline to participate in off-wiki mediation even if they have agreed to on-wiki mediation. No party is compelled to participate in off-wiki discussions, just as no party is compelled to participate in mediation at all. Parties who decline off-wiki mediation need not give any reason and will continue to be able to play a full and equal part in the mediation process through the normal Wikipedia editing process. Declining off-wiki mediation will not be considered disruptive to the mediation process.Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:45, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

In the new policy, we have tried not to regulate minor aspects of the process, but instead to set down the principles and broad context of formal mediation. Moreover, the policy should not duplicate existing policy. The wording you propose micro-manages the process and is unnecessary. Off-site mediation has not occurred or been proposed for years, so I do not believe we need to change the policy to account for such a specialised irrelevancy. AGK [•] 13:16, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

If off-wiki discussions are no longer part of the mediation process then why not just remove any mention of them from the policy? If they are still part of the process then we need the wording that I suggest. It is not micro management it is an essential part of any policy which allows off-wiki contact, for the reasons that I explained, at some length, when these words were added to the last policy. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:58, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Please take this issue seriously

The policy currently says 'Limited discussion about the case may take place outside of Wikipedia at the mediator's sole discretion'. If this is not the intention of the Mediation Committee then we need to amend the policy to make it clear that off-wiki communication is not part of mediation and is not permitted by mediators acting in their official capacity. If off-wiki communication is untended to form a part of mediation, even if only to be used rarely, then we need to make sure that this option is not open to abuse. For those that seem to not be aware of the original discussion of this subject I will very briefly describe the issue below.

Having a person in authority contact a WP user privately provides an opportunity a number of undesirable activities, ranging from outing of private or personal details and breach of anonymity to more serious form of abuse. Obviously, I am not remotely suggesting that the current members of the Committee would engage in such behaviour but if such a thing did ever happen there would be very serious repercussions for Wikipedia, possibly even threatening its viability.

Luckily it is quite easy to resolve this potentially very serious issue. Either remove the option for off-wiki communication from the mediation policy completely or restore the section suggested above and ensure that it is enforced. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:55, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Ummm....

Is this the place to ask general questions about the Mediation process and the Committee? I'm asking because

• [1] This looks just like bureaucratic housekeeping page.
• [2] This has nothing on it AND if you click on the archives the "latest one", i.e. archive 3 (4 and 5 do not exist) is empty, while archive 2 is from ... 2008 and archive 1 is from 2004.

I expect I'm missing some page of centralized discussion. Could someone point me to it? Volunteer Marek 02:31, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

And I note the last comments even here are from 2012.Volunteer Marek 02:40, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

No, it's not. Wikipedia talk:Mediation Committee would be, and if you look in the most recent archive for that page you will see quite a lot of community discussion about the concept of "parties' consent to mediation". As for Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation, it has been edited since 2008; the link to archive 3 was pointing to the wrong page, but I just fixed it. Most other discussion takes place in the mediation proceedings, as part of mediation; the mediation process in general, and the committee as an entity, requires very little or no wider discussion. Hope this helps, AGK [•] 22:14, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I guess Miszabot must've just hit it and it looked relatively empty.Volunteer Marek 22:34, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Proposed amendment to policy

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

It is proposed that the Prerequisites section of the policy should be changed on a 6 month trial basis from:

Current version

Requests for mediation may only be accepted if these conditions are satisfied:

1. Acceptance of the request will benefit both the article and Wikipedia;
2. The dispute relates to the content of a Wikipedia article or other content page;
3. The dispute is not exclusively about the behaviour of a Wikipedia editor;
4. The parties must have first attempted a less-formal dispute resolution method, such as third opinion, request for comment or dispute resolution noticeboard;
5. A majority of the parties to the dispute consent to mediation;
6. Among the parties who have consented to mediation, every major viewpoint concerning the dispute is represented;
7. No legal or office action directives prohibit the dispute; and
8. No related dispute resolution proceedings are open in other Wikipedia forums.

Common reasons for rejection of mediation requests are listed in the guide to mediation.

to the following version:

Proposed version

Requests for mediation may only be accepted if these conditions are satisfied:

1. Acceptance of the request will benefit both the article and Wikipedia;
2. The dispute relates to the content of a Wikipedia article or other content page;
3. The dispute is not exclusively about the behaviour of a Wikipedia editor;
4. The parties must have first engaged in extensive discussion of the matter in dispute at the article talk page and discussion only through edit summaries will not suffice;
5. A majority of the parties to the dispute consent to mediation;
6. Among the parties who have consented to mediation, every major viewpoint concerning the dispute is represented;
7. No legal or office action directives prohibit the dispute; and
8. No related dispute resolution proceedings are active in other Wikipedia forums.
9. Although disputes that satisfy the first eight prerequisites may be mediated by the Committee, the Committee has the discretion to refuse or refer back to other dispute resolution venues (e.g. dispute resolution noticeboard, third opinion, request for comment, or additional talk page discussion) a dispute which would benefit from additional work at lower levels of the dispute resolution process. Refusals or referrals of this nature may be made if so decided by the Committee chairperson or by two other active members of the Committee, and may be overruled by a majority vote of the active mediators.

Common reasons for rejection of mediation requests are listed in the guide to mediation.

Comments and discussion of this proposal

• The proposal is to modify item 4 with the intent of reducing the prerequisites to enable the Committee to take on more cases. The proposal also includes item 9, which is intended to allow the Committee to refuse, or refer back cases, that can be resolved either by talk page discussion, or other dispute resolution methods. PhilKnight (talk) 22:10, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
• I do see value in this proposal, but wonder if it would be beneficial to have a forum like DRN act as a sorter of disputes. I liked the idea of DRN referring disputes to MedCom (I'll elaborate more on my post to Jimmy's talk page at WT:MEDCOM) but feel the flaw in it was the requirement for DRN to be completely exhausted before referral, where some cases might benefit from immediate MedCom intervention. At the same time, making MedCom a free-for-all where any dispute can be filed could cause an influx of frivolous disputes, which should perhaps be taken into consideration. Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 00:31, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Voting

Members of the Mediation Committee, please endorse one of these proposals:

Either:

I agree that this policy modification should be adopted by the Mediation Committee for a 6 month trial.

1. PhilKnight (talk) 22:10, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
2. Sunray (talk) 06:01, 16 September 2013 (UTC). Agree with AGK's changes in wording. Sunray (talk) 17:22, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
3. With copyedits. AGK [•] 10:10, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
4. Support, with or without AGK's edits, but my first choice is with them included. TransporterMan (TALK) 15:09, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
5. AGK's copyedits look like an improvement, but I would support this change either way. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 15:56, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
6. Support, including the copyedits. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 19:15, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Or:

I do not agree that this policy modification should be adopted by the Mediation Committee.

1. <sign here or above>

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Implementing the policy change

@Steven Zhang: Re: Your comment above: I agree with your statement that the flaw may have been the requirement for DRN to be completely exhausted before referral. I also agree that some cases might benefit from immediate intervention by MedCom. I'm not sure that frivolous cases would be a problem. However, using DRN as a sorter of disputes might work. As the one most involved with DRN, would you be willing to make a proposal as to how we might revamp DRN to that end? Sunray (talk) 22:57, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Pinging addressee of above comment: @Steven Zhang. AGK [•] 20:23, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Sunray, when I initially approached MedCom a few months ago, I liked the referral system, but on reflection thought the requirement for DRN to exhaust the dispute entirely would be a waste of time. I'd be willing to propose a process to revamp DRN to this effect (and as a side note, I'm sorry for taking the nuclear option regarding my approach to what I see as problems, I should have brought it here first.) Steven Zhang (talk) 12:36, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Sometimes when things don't seem to be working the nuclear option seems attractive, I guess. No problem. We're here now. I'm delighted to hear that you would be willing to propose a process to revamp DRN. Other MedCom Committee members may be willing to work with you on that. How long do you think you will need to draft something? Sunray (talk) 21:21, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

@Steven Zhang: The committee created for you "an appropriate mechanism through which DRN volunteers can refer cases directly to us". We never required disputes to be 'exhausted' by DRN. As I have said previously, the problem at the moment is therefore that you simply are not referring disputes to us. AGK [•] 14:24, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi AGK. I got the idea of the previous method requiring DRN to be exhausted from your comments made at DRN when it was announced ("However, please remember that this system is not intended to allow disputes to skip the DR process entirely; we will expect referred disputes to have been subjected to the full course of DRN efforts before being referred to us. Thanks, AGK [•] 11:56, 6 August 2013 (UTC)") and from the template itself, but I agree that if the template is updated, we can use that process. Steven Zhang (talk) 00:10, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

If the DRN volunteer's assessment is that no further assistance is possible and formal mediation would be a more suitable method of DR, the dispute could be referred directly to us under the referrals system without violating the terms of the referral system. This could happen immediately after the dispute is brought to DRN, or after some attempt is made at actually resolving the dispute. The language of the terms of the referral system is deliberately vague. AGK [•] 09:26, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree with AGK's suggestion. It looks like some wording needs to change in the instructions at DRN. Should one of us simply BE BOLD and make the necessary changes, or should we propose discuss the change on the DRN talk page first. I favour the latter as that insures that there is a clear description of the change there (as well as here) and due consultation. TransporterMan did open a thread here. So I will continue that. Sunray (talk) 16:29, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Shortcut retarget proposal

I have proposed that WP:MP be changed from Wikipedia:Mediation Committee/Policy to Main Page. If you care either way, please join the discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 January 4#Wikipedia:MP. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 11:04, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Finalizing edits re compromise --> collaboration

There was extensive discussion of this back about a year-and-a-half ago (see the section headed: What does this part of the policy mean?). There was consensus to modify the policy with respect to the use of the term "compromise." As AGK put it: "collaboration, not mere compromise, is the ultimate objective of mediation." So while compromise may be one of the outcomes of mediation, it is not necessarily the objective. Following that discussion the principles were modified, but as Chrisrus pointed out, other changes were needed. In response, I said I would edit the policy accordingly [sound of ball dropping]. However, (and it may have something to do with the fact that I began a stint as chair immediately following that discussion) that didn't happen. So I propose to finish that task now. Comments on my edits, or further discussion would be most welcome. Sunray (talk) 20:47, 12 January 2015 (UTC)