Wikipedia talk:Community enforceable mediation

A few side notes

What I hope to achieve with this is a streamlined and dignified alternative to ArbCom for productive editors. One major gap in the dispute resolution/policy enforcement situation is that there isn't any intermediate point before arbitration where content disputes and user conduct dovetail. Sysops rarely intervene where those waters get muddy and bold responses become contoversial. Ghirla is one dramatic loss, but I suspect this site has lost other good contributors who burn out and quit in frustration. The best solution I can think of is to let some of those established editors assume the responsibility for separating content from conduct and articulate how that applies to themselves.

The biggest pitfall I foresee is that some of the users who end up in arbitration aren't able to assume this responsibility, but would ask to have it. That's why I set forth the statements about selectivity.

I'm open to feedback about this, particularly regarding enforcement mechanisms. In order to avoid confusion with the Mediation Cabal I'm hosting this in my own user space for the present. If the community accepts this proposal on an experimental basis I'd accept a small group of volunteer mediators: past members of the arbitration committee would be ideal, otherwise editors in good standing who've submitted evidence in at least one arbitration case - not necessarily sysops but people who could get mopified if they wanted it. Durova^Charge! 23:05, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I could volunteer as a mediator. Post a comment on my Talk page if you would like more information. Stephen B Streater 21:55, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Followed up at the editor's user talk page. Durova^Charge! 23:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Piotrus

I do support the initative, I have however few remarks about the historical background (i.e. 'Piotrus-Ghirla case' or de facto, 'community-Ghirla case'). One. There is no proof that Ghirla inactivity was caused by the ArbCom case, and the current text is implying that. Two. Whether we would have imposed the civility parole on ourselves is not sure. I and many others (in ArbCom) asked that Ghirla submits himself to it, and he accepted (in mediation). I also stated in RfC, mediation and ArbCom that as a sign of good faith if the community wishes I can sumbit myself to the civility parole as well to show I don't demand anything outside what I believe are normal norms expected of every editor; however no such request was made of me thus speculating on the result of the mediation is better to be avoided.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  05:07, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Would you like to reword that part? You could express it better than anybody. Durova^Charge! 21:11, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I've tried a minor rewording on the civility parole. The statement doesn't explicitly say that Ghirla went inactive because arbitration opened. The timing and his edit comment when he cleared his user page implied that to me pretty strongly. I tried to reflect that implication without stepping over the line. Durova^Charge! 21:14, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I added a few ilinks and slightly adjusted the wording, per suggestion. If this becomes the policy I suggest that the 'history' is moved to talk, as our policies don't usually have 'history of how we designed it' parts.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  14:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Some of the current wording would likely change, and I agree that might be a good step. Glad to see Ghirla isn't gone completely. Thanks for your help. Durova^Charge! 21:24, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) Moving the below from the proposal page. Durova^Charge! 22:24, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

History

Ghirlandajo, one of Wikipedia's most prolific editors, took a wikibreak on 27 December 2006, the same day his arbitration case opened. According to Wikipedia:List_of_Wikipedians_by_number_of_edits, he was twenty-sixth overall in total edits and the fourth most prolific nonadministrator at this site. The large number of Russian-related entries on Wikipedia's main page Did you know? section over the past couple of years was largely his work.

Ghirlandajo had embarked upon an experimental mediation shortly before he went inactive in which he and Piotrus had tentatively agreed to place mutual civility parole upon themselves. Civility parole had never been tried before outside of arbitration decisions. The possibility of a special mediation with enforcement elements, agreed upon by the disputants, seemed attractive to the participants and to the observers.

Excellent proposal

I like this very much. --Ideogram 05:56, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I think anything that would help alleviate the dispute resolution process would be worth a try. However, I'm not sure if there would be many willing participants who would voluntarily agree to restrictions on themselves, even if in an agreement of some sort. Likewise, I'm not sure that those participants will uphold their side of agreements - all they would have to do is withdraw at any time, leaving another futile effort. However, those are just my thoughts. I could be completely wrong on this, and it's certainly a good idea that's worth a shot. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:18, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

This is a very good proposal, Durova. Thanks for writing it up. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:59, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Flcello, I think there is an implication here that if the parties don't resolve it here and agree to self-imposed restrictions the case will go to ArbCom and they will have restrictions imposed on them. I think this was a contributing factor to this approach's promising start in the recent case. --Ideogram 21:38, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

There's also a dividing line: once an administrator closes a community approved agreement it becomes enforceable. At that point the participants lose the option to withdraw. I've been as specific as possible and would appreciate any proposed changes to make that even clearer. Durova^Charge! 23:21, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

• I second the above. Good idea. >Radiant< 11:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Would this be something you'd be willing to test-case with me regarding our little as-of-yet-unresolved spat? And I'm 100% serious about this, if someone's willing to act as the mediator and you're willing to go along with it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
    • I don't know how often I have to repeat this... For the last several weeks, Jeff has been persistently making false accusations and personal attacks about me all over the wiki, and that includes this so-called mediation request. Basically, any recent discussion with him boils down to him namecalling rather than making actual arguments. Several people have pointed that out to him already, but he apparently feels justified in attacking people he considers disruptive. If someone can get him to retract those accusations and attacks, and to stop making them in the future, I'd be happy do discuss our disagreements. >Radiant< 15:47, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
      • This is why I feel this is the best route - I don't believe I've made any false accusations, and very few personal attacks. As opposed to going to ArbCom to get this settled, this would likely work better in the long run. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
        • So you are admitting that you have made personal attacks, and are nevertheless unwilling to stop, just like your statement from last week that you would continue making attacks until I made concessions to you. Such an attitude is not conductive to resolve anything. >Radiant< 16:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
          • I know of one I made that I shouldn't have. I'm not perfect, but I want this resolved. If you'd rather go to ArbCom with it, fine, but it's not due to my not trying other routes. The ball's in your court. We both support this proposal, it's a perfect conflict to make a trial run with, so let's either do it or stop the nonsense and go elsehwere with it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

As an observer, I would like to suggest that to make progress sometimes you have to be willing to bury the past. I think it is not helpful to demand retraction of past actions; if you concentrate on building a relationship conducive to reasonable discussion you may be able to avoid similar actions in the future. --Ideogram 15:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Let's keep this talk page for discussion of the proposal and keep the discussion of the potential test case on my regular user talk page. It's a serious decision to step forward and become an early test case in an experimental program (that hasn't even been approved experimentally as of yet). Nobody should feel pressured. I'd consider this seriously if both sides want it, but they both need to make that choice for themselves. Durova^Charge! 16:19, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

There's a page for that now if you'd like to formalize the request. Wikipedia:Community enforced mediation/Requests Durova^Charge! 03:26, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Replied at Jeff's user talk page. Durova^Charge! 21:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

• I think this idea is very much worth trying. Doubts notwithstanding, I wholeheartedly support it. Durova, thanks very much. Paul August ☎ 21:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

• Yep, good idea. Kirill Lokshin 03:49, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

• I like this too and have some experience in these matters. Possibly too late now but I would have thought I am the sort of operson this could apply to were it to expand. Good work, SqueakBox 00:55, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

• Liking this very much. ArbCom is used too often when this would be better, and becuase of this the cases which ArbCom should deal with miss TLC. Saves a lot of fuss, and I liked what I saw with the trial run - Durova should be commended on this and the handling of the Ghirla-Piotrus hoo-haa. Daniel.Bryant 08:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I like it. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 21:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

• I must say, at the risk of "me 2ing", I really like the look of this proposal, too. I'm looking forward to seeing how some test cases play out. Excellent work, Durova. :) Sarah 04:41, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I was going to ask whether WP:AN was the right place to ask for community consensus on community enforced mediations when you came up with the Community noticeboard, which is of course the perfect thing for seeking community consensus. Great work! :) --Conti|✉ 00:43, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo's input

Looks promising to him.[1] Durova^Charge! 22:30, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Congrats :) -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  00:22, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Experimental phase?

The positive responses so far have been very encouraging. To give the next steps some shape I'll suggest the experimental phase run for three months. At the end of three months the community would propose any structural changes and decide whether to make this permanent. At some point this would move out of my user namespace.

Editors who are interested in mediating through this program should get in touch with me. In most instances I'd bring on new mediators through a sort of apprenticeship - they watch a mediation unfold and discuss it with an established mediator through e-mail.

Although I don't want to jump the gun and try to move forward too quickly, those are my thoughts - I'd appreciate feedback before I add two new brief sections to the proposal. Durova^Charge! 22:40, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and added the two statements. If the experimental phase succeeds I expect some elements to become slightly more formalized - nothing too hidebound. I'd add:

1. A centralized location to request community enforced mediation.
2. A list of community mediators.
3. A paragraph or two about how to become a community mediator. (Additions 1 - 3 would probably fit on a single page).
4. An archive of this program's cases.

Durova^Charge! 16:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Created Wikipedia:Community enforced mediation/Requests. No actual cases will open without community approval of a test run. Durova^Charge! 03:22, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Brilliant work

This sounds an excellent idea. --Dweller 23:03, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Community mediators in training

The following editors have volunteered to train as community mediators for this program:

1. Stephen B Streater
2. Jem
3. Lethaniol

If the program goes into experimental operation I'll list them on the regular page when their training is complete. Program participants who have a dispute should be aware that trainees will observe mediation and discuss it confidentially with the mediator through e-mail. This discussion is more likely to focus on the technical aspects of running a community enforced mediation than on the personalities involved in a particular case. Durova^Charge! 19:00, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

The above text (and any subsequent updates) is now at Wikipedia:Community enforced mediation/Requests. Durova^Charge! 03:44, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Where does this fit in

Where do you think this belongs in the chain of dispute resolution? When should people choose this option and when should they pursue other options? --Ideogram 19:08, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

One step short of ArbCom. Participants can enter binding agreements that impose arbitration-like remedies on themselves. It's a serious matter to open that door. If a dispute's participants can assume good faith about each other they should try RFC or 3O or regular mediation. Editors could go here directly for a dispute where administrators have declined to intervene because user conduct dovetails with policy issues. Wikipedia hasn't had any alternative to ArbCom for that situation. Of course I'd also be happy if this format resolves a case with a friendly handshake between the participants and no remedies, but if they really anticipate handling things amicably they'd be better off with one of the more moderate and established alternatives. Durova^Charge! 19:30, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

One possible outcome

I have a concern that the "handshake" outcome described above, or a 24-hr mandatory chill-out, may be what each party is frequently going to want to accept for themselves (I just don't see people being self-detached enough, especially in such a heated situation that there is policy misconduct as well as content dispute, to say oh yes, put me on parole for a month and block me for the next 48 hours, please). I forsee these weak-willed solutions will frequently go to the community per the new board and get a Return from the community because evidence suggests an ArbCom precedent of greater enforcement. The mediator does what exactly to get both parties closer to accepting ArbCom precedence for their particular incident(s)? I can only imagine that users will agree to less than ArbCom precedence for their particular problem and if that's too far from what the community expects for the actions given, how often does this bounce back as a Return and how long do the actions that led to CEM perpetuate before the mediator throws their hands up and finally sends it to ArbCom anyways (I'm imagining that the mediator will withdraw and someone/anyone will start the ArbCom since nothing was ultimately solved)?

A second concern is how well the evidence, from incident(s) that could have been an extensive ArbCom hearing, is going to be summarized in order to get enough community input to make an informed consensus about the user-suggested/mediator-agreed outcome. I worry that a detached or disinterested community asked to observe a 50kb, back-and-forth, argumentative and wiki-lawyered discussion page will be likely unwilling to sort through it all to give a good or meaningful response. ArbCom members don't easily escape having to draw a decision on a case that heads towards bickering, whereas the community has no similar impetus...and so the result may be poor community response from the more tedious cases. If the community doesn't respond well to a notice on the board and the case gets a default Return...what makes more discussion any more appetizing to the community to respond a future time either? I guess this returns (no pun intended) to my previous concern about how many rounds of mediated, self-medicating discussion is reasonable before the whole mess gets dumped onto ArbCom anyways. And, does it then need to be rehashed from square one for the parties involved since ArbCom wasn't observing it all to begin with or will there be a means of transfer from this discussion to ArbCom case for those times when CEM just can't satisfy the situation?

If two parties can't come to a reasonable conclusion on user/article talk pages, I am not sure why they're going to want to set their own ArbCom rulings anywhere near that which is most likely warranted (and therefore community-acceptable) if the problem gets to the "near ArbCom" state that this is intended for. That's quite a bit to digest, so I'll leave my current thoughts to that at the moment. Thanks. ju66l3r 07:57, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

That's certainly a thoughtful criticism. You've done a good job of outlining most of the pitfalls I considered when I drafted this proposal. Let me add one more for you: the wikilawyer who plays for time in this program agrees to a solution, then moans and wails when they actually get blocked and tries to shut down the program in a firestorm of frivolous complaints.

The key here, obviously, is the moderator's role. I wouldn't take a case unless it appeared the participants were mature enough to settle it this way. Maturity is a quality some people have at age fifteen and others lack at fifty. I'd look for several traits - among them commitment to Wikipedia as a project, willingness to accept responsibility for one's mistakes, and mutual desire to overcome differences. I'd screen out potential cases where either editor has a history of wikilawyering and if I observed wikilawyering during mediation I'd stop the case. Also, just because two participants agree to a solution doesn't mean it automatically slides over to the community. I've given evidence in a number of arbitration cases and I'd screen agreements to make sure they're in line with precedent. Leading up to that time I'd offer suggestions and guidance so the participants work toward a feasible remedy. By the time the community gets a proposed remedy it will probably be something the community can accept, and if it isn't the community members' comments should offer a good framework for adjusting the proposal so it gains acceptance on the second try. If things drag on without meaningful progress, again I'd close the case. I'm not starting this to waste anyone's time, least of all my own.

Three people have volunteered to be community mediator trainees. I'll have them read your criticism because it's a good summary of what could happen in the hands of an incompetent mediator. The people in training are excellent - I don't think any of them would make the series of errors you outline - but it's good to have an articulation of the worst case scenario. Part of what I'm asking is that you trust me. That's why I've proposed this as a three month experiment rather than a fully fledged program. Respectfully, Durova^Charge! 19:29, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

It's clear that you've considered many possibilities and outlined a very plausible system for involved party dispute resolution, given the case filtering criteria above and the ability to end the process short of agreement in cases when it is warranted. Thus, if any case doesn't fit the new system, it's sent back to the machina already in place. You have put in enough foresight for me to believe an experimental period would definitely be worthy for the community to observe the process in action.

I will be curious to witness the test cases as they progress through the process. I still hold that it's somewhat contradictory to expect maturity to remain intact for both parties when you're considering cases that are disputes with user conduct violation undertones. I worry that the parties will have checked a good portion of their maturity at the keyboard when they chose to violate Wikipedia conduct policies (or, at the least, believe the other party has violated those policies which results in the same civility/incivility impasse). It's often not self-realized that both sides were "in the wrong" until ArbCom hands down paroles on the party that brought the case to ArbCom in the first place (as well as the one they blame for the situation). Again, once ArbCom takes the case, it's usually (always?) seen through to the end, whereas here the option to discontinue is not only available but necessary as a mulligan for two parties that entered the door rationally but devolved when dealing with only themselves, their antagonist, and a mediator whose role is outlined as primarily hands-off.

Not necessarily speaking to any of these specific concerns, I believe the badlydrawnjeff and Radiant dispute could have been an exemplary first demonstration of your process proposition, but it appears that won't be the case. I consider both to be mature and reasonable editors, but given even a rather tame dispute such as this one, one party is not willing to work towards a solution with the other voluntarily: one of the requirements for the proposed system. The reason is perceived name-calling without apology and conversely a lack of apology for what's perceived as no actual slight of name. Both mature and acting in a way they believe to be reasonable, but unwilling to accept their partial responsibility for the dispute which in my mind places both quite a way from the introspection necessary to agree upon a responsible corrective measure that would be enforced upon themselves. This is of course why the rule is in place for both parties to be in agreement to settle the case here. The fact that, at this point, even this dispute shows two of Wikipedia's better editors can not yet fit the requirements speaks to my concerns. That is why I will be curious to see how the first few cases proceed that do meet the requirements. Thanks for your work on this, good luck and I'll voice any other help or concerns I have as I see them. ju66l3r 20:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

May I make one request regarding that? It's a big decision to try an experimental program such as this one and there are many valid reasons why an editor may choose to decline. I'll discuss new cases confidentially with trainees from the perspective of running the program, much in the tone of my first reply to you, but I'd prefer not to stray into too close an analysis of specific personalities - certainly not publicly anyway. I could guess at motivations and I could manage a case based on judgement calls, but it wouldn't be dignified to converse the way I'd chat about a sporting event.

In a broader sense, I could foresee this as beneficial even if talks break down and arbitration follows. Whatever reasonable progress the two parties achieve before the impasse could be incorporated into an arbitrated solution, which simplifies the arbitrators' task. Participants would come here because they know that alternative is near. The choice would often be select your own remedies or have them selected for you with a lot of added hassle. In my experience - purely anecdotally - I suspect some disputes smolder without resolution and some good editors leave the project simply because full arbitration is so cumbersome. Your cautions are very well chosen and I respect them. When I draft a proposal I try to anticipate every careless mistake and bad faith maneuver possible, and then write something that takes those antics into account without seeming condescending. It's an art. Durova^Charge! 21:46, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your request absolutely; my intent was not to analyze personalities or the details of any specific case here. I only wanted to point to an example that might have seemed to fit this procedure, but whereas even well-intentioned editors don't always see eye-to-eye enough to meet the criteria as they have been laid out here. In summary (and to abstract from my given example to allay your concerns): I worry that if they fit well enough to meet the criteria, then they likely didn't need the procedure available here in the first place. If they don't fit the criteria here, then they likely needed the process more than they knew/recognized and will end up in ArbCom because of the depth, breadth, and or longevity of the dispute. ju66l3r 22:09, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Let's try it and see. Durova^Charge! 23:17, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Just chucking in my two pence here. I think again what is key is that the cases that will only be accepted for CEM are those that have the level of maturity that Durova mentioned. I've looked at and mediated a fair amount of cases where editors are genuinely passionate about the article they are involved in a dispute with, and sometimes allow this enthusiasm to get the better of them. Their edits can sometimes clash with the views of other editors and this can in turn cause personal attacks. These editors usually have an illustrious edit history and a record of contributions to Wikipedia that makes them assets to the project, and so going to the ArbCom (which some editors, as mentioned above, feel is too cumbersome and drawn out when they would much rather concentrate on editing) is not a situation they would want to involve themselves in. Furthermore, an enforced ArbCom solution which has the potential to drag names "through the mud" could be resolved much more amicably by discussion that has a definite end, rather than the loose end that is sometimes provded by "normal" mediation. This is when CEM would come into its own, as it were; the numerous editors that become embroiled in disputes but are good, valued contributors who would probably be willing to move foward to ArbCom precendents and mot get to that "return bounding" stage. But I completely agree, this only works if each case is screened on its merits. I also feel that if and when this proposal becomes formalised, people will perhaps have more confidence in it compared to when the process is experimental, as Durova explained.

With regards to community involvement, I do see what you have said as certainly an issue; I know I've been a little disheartened seeing the box that says "This page is 57kB long" and having to read it all to understand the dispute. But I think what is important here is the role of both participants and mediators. The set up seems analogous, to me at least, to an (albeit simplified) British magistrate's court. There are two parties who (although they are not avocating directly against each other) are trying to reach a resolution. The magistrates are often lay-people who have the authority to impose the binding decision of the law; it is worth bearing in mind that they just hear the facts of the case and decide upon the facts. And there is the Clerk to the Magistrates, who is usually a lawyer and has a detailed understanding of the law and precedent, and as such recommends courses of action to follow. Ultimately, the magistrate always has the final say. Here, we see the two paries as the advocates, both trying to reach a resolution; the community being the magistrates, detatched from any direct involvement in the case; and the clerk could well be the mediators, who know about precedent from ArbCom and as such give the community the facts they need.

Before there is an expeirmental case, it may seem somewhat premature to talk about how a case could be presented to the community, but perhaps the worries could be alleviated if it was a role of the mediator to provide the main points of the case and provide links to diffs or the like, to encourage community users to become involved in the face of mountains of discourse. This may seem a little risky, but I do feel a balance does have to be struck between presneting a case in entirety to retain the discussion "as is," and ensuring enough community involvement to avoid the scenario demonstrated by Ju66l3r. Jem 12:25, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I think some very valid concerns have been raised here and they need to be addressed before we start any experimental mediation. IMHO there are three mains issues that need to be resolved – how to foster “Buy in” from participants, how to get participants to pick appropriate restrictions and how to produce an appropriate summary of the case for community discussion. With all three, the role of the mediator is paramount (makes me feel a bit daunted now that I think of the diplomacy required :-) ), though in slight contrast to Durova I think the mediator will need to be more hands on occasion, to make sure that the participants stay on course for a successful resolution. Furthermore, as Durova has made clear, the cases will need to be filtered carefully, in particular I believe the following situations would not be appropriate for CEM:

1. When the participants can not agree on any issue and/or there is near continuous incivility between them.
2. When the participants are split into one large group of editors against one single editor (not relevant to the experimental phase, but will be in the future).
3. When the participants do not understand the seriousness of the situation that they are in and/or aware of how the ArbCom process works.

Anyway onto the three issues I raised:

“Buy in” – all participants need to feel that they have something to gain out of the Community Enforced Mediation – i.e. that they understand they will otherwise end up at the ArbCom, with significant stress and restrictions imposed anyway. This would need to be explained in detail to them to allow them to “buy into” the process and its results, however seemingly restrictive.

Picking appropriate restrictions and the “handshake problem” – I was going to suggest that the option of a handshake and 24 hour cool off period, was only allowed if the community Returns the CEM proposal, with the debate suggesting that it is too harsh. Basically if they are at this stage then there will likely be restrictions for 99% of the time, even if that is that they are under parole for a certain amount of time. Thinking about Durova’s comment about the mediator’s role in not letting the participants choose obviously inappropriately low restrictions, maybe my suggestion is now not valid. Again I think this can only work if the mediator is relatively hands on.

Presentation of evidence – obviously we do not want too much information for the community to wade through. One way round this would be for the participants to come up with a summary of the CEM, so that the Community have a short er snappier version of any evidence presented, with links to further evidence (preferably previous RfCs, MedCab etc…). I like the mediation page at User:Durova/Mediation – well structured and easy to digest. I think with mediator help a neutral and fair summary could be agreed upon by the participants.

This leads onto my final thoughts, on a comparison of CEM with ArbCom, which is relevant to the successful resolution of the above three issues. I respectfully disagree with Jem, CEM is not IMHO like a Magistrates court, such a court is much more like the ArbCom. CEM should be like an alternative dispute resolution – where instead of two parties taking their case to court, they save money/time/stress my discussing the issue between themselves until they come up with some agreement. In an ArbCom case it is all about who can make the best case in front of a panel of judges. Again IMHO, in a CEM case the participants should not worry about evidence but concentrate on broad statements of fault and the remedies required. Note in the CEM case there is evidence, but it is likely already presented in a number of other forums and should not be rehashed. In passing, the answer to another question raised above on the issue of transferring of information to the ArbCom should be irrelevant, as the CEM should not be stacked with evidence.

The more I think about the CEM, the more I like it. More and more now-a-days Alternative dispute resolution is being used to resolve legal disputes (read an Economist (magazine) about it last week as it happens) that would have otherwise ended up in court, with obvious disadvantages. Of course success will require participants that are mature enough to deal with the situation, and mediators who are on the ball. Cheers Lethaniol 20:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Two more pence for the pile: Alot of good points have been posed here. I agree with 6613 in the way of how this mediation could go wrong, and I agree that a great deal of this is avoided with screening. Personally for me, I would prefer to work out my own remedies as opposed to having them selected for me. When people are empowered, I believe they are more productive, so empower them to work out their own remedies with a mediator to facilitate the process. Perhaps writing a screening process into the proposal. Regards, Navou ^banter / _{review me} 23:47, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

In response to 6613's fear that people will give themselves remedies that are too lenient, I would say that it's important to educate the parties of the potential consequences if this process were to fail (namely ArbCom). While I don't believe that threatening someone with ArbCom to accept a remedy is appropriate, the fact is that, in some of the situations CEM would handle, ArbCom would have jurisdiction. There's a fine line between informing and coercing, but people need to know the potential consequences of their actions.

In response to Lethaniol's 3 scenarios, I slightly disagree. In #1, where there is continuous incivility, CEM could still be worth a try. If the mediator acted as a "go-between" between the two parties, re-expressing their ideas in a civil and neutral way, they may realize that they have more in common than they thought. Though they may end up agreeing to disagree, hopefully, they will end up on better terms and come to an agreement that will defuse the situation. My take on mediation is that it's worth a try, and it's the mediator's responsibility to judge when no further dialogue would be productive.

For scenario #2, I agree that CEM would not be appropriate. WP:RFC would be an appropriate forum for that situation. And, for scenario #3, I think that it would be the mediator's role to educate the parties about the process and the consequences of not coming to a conclusion, as I mentioned above. Citing precedent could be very effective here. Though pure speculation or fearmongering would be inappropriate, pointing someone to resources about the dispute resolution process, including relevant prior ArbCom cases is simply providing factual information.

If the parties are not mature enough for CEM, we still have ArbCom, RfC, and AIN to deal with situations. Yes, mediators need to be trained to recognize when they won't be useful and not try to play hero, but, since the community is so involved in the process, I'm sure that someone will point out when a mediator is over his or her head or another process is more appropriate. --JaimeLesMaths ^(talk!edits) 10:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Just to clairfy, my analogy was supposed to illustrate the role of the mediator towards the parties involved and the community; that is presenting the relevant ArbCom precedents, as the clerk of court does. It wasn't intended to show the who process as similar to some judicial arbitration. Whilst I agree it's not a forum for old evidence to be rehashed, as it were, if binding decisions are to be made then all involved parties must have a knowledge of previous ArbCom precedents. I am also in agreement with JaimeLesMaths; I feel that in any dispute where editors are concerned for the welfare of the article they may stray into incivility and this process is a valid way to nip the problem in the bud. We are all guilty of incivility at some point of our lives, and I agree that this scenario allows for a calmer and more reasoned perspective. From my experience, when someone external steps in, this often has the effect of getting everyone to cool off. As long as there have not been serious breaches of policy, e.g. personal threats or talk page vandalism, this would be an ideal way to sort out the issues. Indeed, this proposal was meant, I believe, to deal with cases that dovetail both content and conduct issues, ones that administrators may feel to be in too much of a grey area to act unilaterally on. Jem 13:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Maybe Jaime is right - that even if there is a load of incivility on both sides, the process of CEM and having a neutral mediator may cause things to cool down. Cheers Lethaniol 14:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

The way I view things, I agree that there will be some times when an active mediator is a good thing. What I intend to avoid is hand-holding. That's why I decided not to make things simpler on the participants, such as offering a list of arbitration remedies for reference. A good part of the experience ought to be browsing those cases for themselves. When it comes to remedies a little leniency might not always be bad. Arbitration wields a heavy hammer. If editors can get along with civility parole rather than topic banning, why not let them try it? Durova^Charge! 22:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Volunteer

I'm curious to see if this dispute resolution medium will work in practice as well as it does in theory. Certainly for content disputes (with slight user conduct issues) where both parties are trying to improve the article in good faith, this forum should be very productive. And, in cases where one party is not really acting in good faith, we still have ArbCom above. Count me in as an experimental mediator. --JaimeLesMaths ^(talk!edits) 20:11, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Replied at my user talk page. Durova^Charge! 22:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration Cabal

For what appears to be a somewhat similar proposal, see User:Geo.plrd/Arbcab (about which a notice has been posted at Wikipedia:Community Portal). -- John Broughton (♫♫) 22:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Just as a notice, it appears to me to be yet another attempt at some form of committee or extra permission (in his less-than-a-year, he has applied for adminship twice, as welll as for the Medcom twice). That aside, I think that this comment applies quite soundly to this proposal as well. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 22:10, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

• I'm not clear, when you say this proposal, are you referring to community enforced mediation, or the above "ArbCab" proposal? Navou ^banter / _{review me} 22:13, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I mean that the comment posted on that proposal applies to this proposal. And my comments about Geo.plrd are about that proposal. Hope that cleared it up. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 18:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

The option to withdraw during community discussion caused a little bit of confusion earlier on this page. If that's the same issue here I'll address the matter: it's basically a fail-safe in case the mediator makes a goof. Suppose the mediator puts a proposal to the community before both parties have agreed to all the terms. Then it's perfectly reasonable for a participant to say I didn't agree to that! With any luck the mediator wouldn't make that mistake in the first place or would withdraw it as soon as the error comes to light, but the participants themselves shouldn't get locked into something they didn't agree to. So in case that unlikely scenario does occur, the proposal has this safety valve. Once the community approves an agreement it does become binding and enforceable. I hope that explanation clears things up. Durova^Charge! 21:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I suppose I see it as yet another layer of bureaucracy in the already (to me) seemingly complicated chain of dispute resolution. I mean, first you have informal discussion on a talk page, then possibly a WP:30, then maybe a WP:RFC, then possibly the WP:MEDCAB. Usually things do come towards the WP:MEDCOM if they're not resolved at MedCab level. If not us, then it goes to WP:ARBCOM. I suppose I just see it as another loop to jump through. I mean, by all means go ahead with your trial, and if it has the support of some members of the AC and Jimbo, then all the better, I personally just don't see the need. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 21:49, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo and the ArbCom members who've replied have viewed this as a positive addition. For about a year now the community has taken on some of the simpler functions that used to be handled by arbitration. The Committee was formed in early 2004 after Jimbo decided the site had gotten too large to resolve all serious disputes by himself. Wikipedia's grown much larger in the intervening three years. Proposals such as this one help keep their case load at a manageable level - and if this succeeds this may also reduce attrition among established editors. I'm no fan of bureaucracy - I drafted this because I believe it fills a gap. Durova^Charge! 20:56, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

After serious consideration, I've changed my mind on this (the CEM, not ArbCab), I can see how this will help. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 14:16, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

The crucial flaw

I spotted what I think is a flaw in this system. The idea is to ask for community approval of a solution only after that solution is already agreed upon by the participants! But if the people in a dispute have agreed on some kind of solution, why does that need community approval? >Radiant< 14:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

To make sure the solution is realistic, adequate, and enforceable. The only things that would be placed before the community would be remedies that the participants fashion after arbitration precedents. The community deserves a voice if they give something a twist that might not succeed. I anticipate most solutions would win easy approval unless the meditor makes a serious error in judgement. Durova^Charge! 20:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I would add that the community has rights, too. Especially since we are dealing with some content concerns here, if the community doesn't like the solution, it could spark additional edit wars. A dispute may seem to be between just two participants when it arrives, but it could be that the disputants are just the most vocal representatives of two different camps (and everyone else decided to stay out). If the proposed solution doesn't have community input and consensus, it's not going to be enforceable. However, though it's an important step in the process, I think that, most of the time, the community will approve, and, in cases where it doesn't, the reason why probably indicates that ArbCom or RfC should have handled it anyway. --JaimeLesMaths ^(talk!edits) 02:42, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, but the point is that the participants have already agreed before the community is asked. Suppose User:Foo and User:Bar are at odds over article Xyzzy. A mediator is drawn in, and after some discussion both decide to comply with the 1RR, as well as voluntary personal attack parole as judged by the mediator. Problem solved, no? Are you then going to ask the community whether they like it, and can the community say, "hey, you can't put yourself under NPA parole"? >Radiant< 12:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Radiant, you seem to be comparing apples and oranges. One key to making this work as mediation is that no one steps into this program and gets railroaded into something they didn't agree to (via this program). This proposal specifically states that the community remains empowered to enact its own remedies upon editors who participate in this program. So, for example, this wouldn't shield a user from community banning. That would happen through separate action because it wouldn't be mediation anymore. Makes sense? Durova^Charge! 21:27, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikijury

Talking about flaws, a common one with previous similiar intatives was that the 'community' was not really involved - very few people actually comment on each case. What about randomy selecting a number of users and asking them to comment (if they wish) on each case? This would introduce them to this board, and provide us with some random (neutral) much needed input.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  15:18, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

We shouldn't make it obligatory, of course. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 16:36, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, how would users be randomly selected? (I ask because more than 90% of registered users have done less than 10 edits, ever, total, while registered.) -- John Broughton (♫♫) 00:39, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

What if we used a listing of all users with >100 edits? ^demon^{[omg plz]} 02:43, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Of course, not obligatory - just an invitation to a discussion. The best 'working' solution I can think of ATM would be writing a bot which would simply deliver a message about requested thread on this board to several members of Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits (which are more likely to be active than an 'average' editor who has fewer edits).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:38, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

• This program would set up a separate comment page where anyone could offer observations. If someone wants to create a volunteer panel for that or if individual editors decided to hang out and comment, that's fine. The proposal could accommodate that through its current language. Durova^Charge! 21:29, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps name this something else?

Hello! I was just looking at this proposal. I am not saying it is a bad idea, but it is very different in spirit from current Mediation practices. Mediation offered by the Mediation Cabal and Mediation Committee is completely unenforceable. Also, the Mediation Committee protects its cases with confidentiality, meaning it cannot be used as evidence in other phases of the dispute resolution process, even if the mediation occurs on-wiki.

I am also unclear how the mediator for Community enforced mediation is permitted to help the participants reach an agreement in the first place, which is generally more difficult than seeing that the agreement is carried out.

Perhaps you could call it "Community enforced negotiation"?

— Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 01:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

If you have a better title, then by all means propose it. I'm all ears.

Regarding the mediator's role, the way I'd handle things is to refer the participants to relevant arbitration cases. I'd want them to read those cases for themselves. I may comment sometimes and steer them toward areas of agreement, both in terms of their content dispute and in terms of potential remedies. For samples of my approach, see this page where an editor recently solicited my participation and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Midnight Syndicate. I've given evidence at quite a few arbitration cases. That one was also initiated at my request. The six volunteer trainees would basically get mentored in my approach and would operate independently when they're ready for it. Durova^Charge! 22:27, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for my long response time. My suggestion would be renaming it "Community enforced negotiation". I know I am mincing words, but it would be helpful to make generalisations about mediation on Wikipedia, without having to say "except for community enforced mediation".

It seems like your approach might be helpful to some people, although I guess you will find out as you try it. I wish you the best of luck, Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 00:21, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Hm, I see the point you're raising. I agree you've got something worth considering and it came to mind in the early draft stages for me also. I wonder whether Community enforced negotiation have any meaning to people who don't already understand what it is? I'm concerned that this may lead down the route to bureaucratese: a group of people sit down for the purpose of developing a new program. When they get to the part of the agenda where they name the thing, two or three of them mention whatever pops into their heads and the group agrees to keep whatever solution rouses the least objections. So the name seems fine to the people who already know what it is but conveys almost no information to the rest of the world and there's nothing catchy about its sound or its phrasing. Eventually the thing gets known by an acronym because the full name has way too many syllables, which further obscures its purpose from the uninitiated.

If you're serious about renaming this let's think outside the box. About a year ago I started writing an essay about informal dispute resolution. On my text editor it had a descriptive title - I forget was it was now so it must have been dull - and one of the last things I though about before posting onsite was the fight-or-flight response: sometimes editors get angry and act rashly when their body goes into a state that would help them escape from a wild animal...a leftover instinct from our ancient ancestors. That essay became Wikipedia:No angry mastodons, which might not be very descriptive but it sure is catchy. That's essay space and this is dispute resolution, but maybe that sort of sideways thinking could help here as well. Durova^Charge! 05:56, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll try to think of something.  : ) Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 06:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

We've got two threads discussing this now (see the bottom of the page). I've proposed Community enforceable mediation. Durova^Charge! 18:09, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Questions about the mediator role

From the proposal and discussion, it seems as though the mediator has a very limited role. It seems as though the mediators do not have much of a mediation role, rather being more like clerks than mediators. My impression from reading here is that they are limited to citing "case law" and presenting information for community approval. What are the mediator limits envisioned? What would be the appropriate limit on a mediator suggesting solutions? Should the mediator point out potential points of agreement, or areas where the participants are not far off from each other, that the participants are not noticing or giving much attention? Should the mediator steer the discussion in some instances and to what degree? Vassyana 11:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I drafted this proposal to keep things open ended: a mediator could be as active here as a mediator would be in Wikipedia's existing processes. The distinction I aim to draw is between active mediation and hand holding. This isn't the appropriate venue for a participant who needs to be stepped through the process and have everything explained point by point. I'd close a case where one of the participants didn't demonstrate enough understanding and independence. In a different sort of case where both participants know what they're getting into and could use some impartial feedback and a fresh perspective I'd give as much as the situation required. Yet I also like the idea of having the participants read arbitration precedents: not only is that informative about what their real options are, it's an object lesson in where their dispute could go if they don't resolve it themselves. So without formally restricting the mediator's role, I'd like everyone to approach this with the expectation that they'll invest some effort here. Durova^Charge! 04:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you so much for clarifying this for me. I wasn't objecting to providing the ArbCom precedents, I just was a bit confused about the mediator's role. Could you perhaps update the proposal to clarify this? Also, I would be interested in volunteering as a mediator, if you'd have me. Thank you again for your reply, it is most sincerely appreciated. Vassyana 13:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the input. I'll give the proposal another read and see how I could make that more clear. So far this has six mediator trainees, plus a seventh volunteer I've accepted and need to add to the list. If you're interested in joining them please follow up at my user page and describe your experience in dispute resolution. Cheers, Durova^Charge! 13:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

If you have that many already, I'll take a backseat and watch this unfold. I like the idea and I'm interested to see how it shakes out. Vassyana 14:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

One of the really heartwarming things about drawing up this proposal is how many people have stepped forward to volunteer their efforts with it. The door remains open. Warm regards, Durova^Charge! 00:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) I've amended the format statement to clarify things per this discussion. Durova^Charge! 05:13, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Very good changes. I think it clears up any confusion someone might have, as I did, very nicely, while stressing this is for editors with initiative. Vassyana 14:01, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much. It's a challenge to get this just right. Please add any other comments that come to mind. You've been very helpful. Cheers, Durova^Charge! 19:21, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Looking good, Durova. Are there any cases mediated in this manner already? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:18, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Not yet. If you encounter a potential case get in touch with me, please. Durova^Charge! 22:13, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Confused

I've read this over and I don't feel I've understood it. How is it enforced by the community? What exactly is being enforced? Who initiates the process? How are the mediators chosen? What does this mean: "Either of the two participants or the mediator may end mediation unilaterally at any time before the community accepts or rejects it by consensus." What is it that the community is accepting or rejecting by consensus?

Sorry if I'm being dense. :-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem. Basically this addresses a sticky situation: two editors get into a conflict dispute that spills over into policy violations. They try dispute resolution, but the level of mutual trust has dipped to the point where they can't just shake hands and get back to editing. Sysops rarely intervene because the waters have gotten muddy. Up until now the only other solution has been to knock at ArbCom's door. Think of this as mediation with teeth: instead of just promising to play nicely together the participants can impose remedies on themselves such as 1RR or civility parole.

• How is it enforced by the community?

Similar to how remedies gets enforced from an arbitration case. For example, someone makes a post to WP:ANI that gives diffs of 2 reverts in 24 hours and links to a 1RR CEM remedy, then the enforcing admin implements a block and notes the block at the bottom of that CEM mediation page.

• What exactly is being enforced?

Arbitration-style remedies.

• Who initiates the process?

Both participants sign at Wikipedia:Community enforced mediation/Requests. I've tweaked that page per your question to make it more clear.

• How are the mediators chosen?

Right now I'm the only mediator. Seven volunteers have stepped forward as trainees. Wikipedia:Community enforced mediation/Requests lists their names and summarizes the training process. Most of these people already have experience with existing forms of mediation and/or WP:ADOPT. When they're ready I'll move them from trainees to full community mediators.

• What does this mean: "Either of the two participants or the mediator may end mediation unilaterally at any time before the community accepts or rejects it by consensus." What is it that the community is accepting or rejecting by consensus?

Reworded to: "Either of the two participants may end mediation unilaterally at any time before the community accepts a proposed set of remedies by consensus." Does that answer your question?

Durova^Charge! 23:16, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Could you please clarify what do you mean by "participants can impose remedies on themselves"? Is that about one editor suggesting remedies for the opposing party?. If that is the case, it is not clear in the current wording. And if that is not the case, I have not fully understood how this would work. Can you clarify?≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:29, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that clear explanation, Durova, and for the tweaking, which does clarify things. I liked this proposal when I first saw it, but it's making me uneasy now that I think about it, and here's why. I can well imagine a situation where a troll will use this as a way of continuing their harassment of someone they've targeted. We've had a few situations where users have started stalking or otherwise harassing someone, often in the guise of trying to settle a content dispute. I would worry that any community-enforced mediation will force the stalkee into a situation of having to interact with the stalker. Stalking and baiting can be very subtle, and it may not be obvious to the community that that's what's going on. The ArbCom is somewhat attuned to it by now, and they tend to be able to recognize when someone is trying to use arbitration as a way of continuing disruption. It's not clear that the community would recognize it.

For that reason, I would like to see one safeguard against stalkers and one disincentive. First, it should be made clear that users can say no to the mediation, and I think perhaps leaving out "enforced" would help there. It could be community mediation, community-directed mediation, community-recommended mediation, community-supervised mediation. Secondly, either user should be able to choose to conduct the mediation by e-mail, rather than publicly, and if one of them so chooses, then the entire mediation will be conducted privately. This will be a disincentive to trolls, who like to grandstand; if they're denied the ability to use the mediation as a platform for public baiting, they're less likely to be interested in it.

Any thoughts? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:43, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

---

Excellent comments from both of you, and thank you. They cover somewhat different ground so I'll set this answer apart from the rest of the thread.

First, to Jossi. I like your point and this ought to be explicit. Added the following: No proposed solution may be submitted to the community until both of the participants have agreed that it is complete and agreed to all of its provisions. The way that had been developing while the Piotrus/Ghirla discussion was active might be summarized: Piotrus: I wish you were on civility parole. Ghirla: I wish you were on civility parole. Piotrus: I don't think I need it, but if it makes you happy we can both be on civility parole. Ghirla: Mutual civility parole? That sounds fair.

In practice I'd usually recommend a list of ArbCom cases that bear some similarity to the dispute. The participants can use those precedents as a starting point (and while they're reading, also get an object lesson about where they could be headed if they don't settle the dispute for themselves). They'd probably begin by explaining their viewpoints to each other. I'd prefer to see them initiate discussion about remedies for themselves and as long as they're realistic that's their chat. If the discussion veers I'd steer it back and I'd remind them if something was incomplete. For example, 1RR sounds fine, but are we clear about the scope? You've mentioned Sri Lanka, History of Sri Lanka, and Buddhism. Do you both agree to it at all three pages? They decide what to do. I make sure it's practical and complete. Then when all three of us are satisfied I show the proposal to the community.

Next, to SlimVirgin (and Armedblowfish): (This reply is a bit sketchy, so apologies if it's rough around the edges).

To answer SV's questions, this page has seen plenty of responses envisioned how users might try to game this process. Those are good questions and I agree the proposal needs to encompass them. I spent six weeks pondering those things before I opened this proposal. Maybe something will happen in real life that I haven't anticipated, but I'm glad to say every goofy or bad faith scenario that's been mentioned at the talk page has been something I already anticipated in the proposal.

Here's how my version handles trolling and stalking: I close the case and refer it elsewhere. CEM is not for everyone.

Mediators are not required to explain their reasons for rejecting a case: assume good faith has already degraded by the time disputants consider this solution, so in order to avoid worsening a situation the mediator who rejects a potential case or withdraws from a case in progress is not expected to elaborate.

Regarding the specific changes that went into the proposal last night, I haven't reverted (erm...yet) and they look like well meaning ideas that are standard practice in nonbinding mediation but problematic in this setting.

I don't see any way confidential mediation could be compatible with this format. This is about community involvement. If two people came to me and asked me to mediate confidentially, I'd ask them how they'd expect the community to react to a proposal that emerges out of a black box. The community would want to know how we agreed to it, but we've all pledged to keep silent so nobody else has enough information to make an informed decision. Now of course once in a while a piece of information really ought to be private, but if things are so sensitive the whole proceeding takes place between closed doors then those people ought to be in nonbinding mediation or ArbCom.

Regarding mediator involvement, see this thread in particular (and also pretty much the whole talk page): Wikipedia_talk:Community_enforced_mediation#Questions_about_the_mediator_role. This process is suitable only for people who shoulder the responsibility that goes along with binding remedies. If two people are serious about reading arbitration cases and resolving their problem I'll give them all the help they need, but I'll close the case on users who expect to be held by the hand or who appear to be gaming the process. Those are the same individuals who would start a ruckus after the community consensus closed. I didn't realize I could actually be blocked! This isn't fair. I got forced into it! The people who come here ought to understand what it means and choose freely.Durova^Charge! 15:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I understand now, Durova. Thanks for for the explanation. I like this a lot, mainly because it puts the burden on participants via a self-negotiated/self-imposed remedy. Having the support of the community for such remedies, makes it even better. I would only say that I concur with SlimVirgin as it pertains to the choice of name. A much better term would be "Community Supported Mediation", "Community Enabled Mediation" or any other more suitable name. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

There's a concurrent thread a bit higher on this page about naming. I'm open to better ideas than this and concerned about bureaucratese. Wikipedia offers several different mediation types. First priority is to make sure newcomers understand which this means: it's the only one with community involvement and enforced remedies. In an ideal world the title would be both catchy and descriptive, but I'll settle for descriptive. I'm wary of title changes that dilute how these remedies ultimately become binding: some users will surely cooperate until the moment they actually get blocked for 2RR, then holler No, it's voluntary! I don't agree so unblock me. And then when their request gets denied they'll try to make a fuss about how they never understood that. It's simpler to respond when an unblock reviewer can point to the enforcement aspect in the title. Would Community enforceable mediation settle your concerns? Durova^Charge! 17:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

You make valid points about the possible "dilution" of the enforceability of the mediation remedies. I would go along with the current name, unless someone can come up with a brilliant name that can work better. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

The more I think about it the more I like Community enforceable mediation. That has a lighter touch without getting too light and it seems less prone to misinterpretation (as in somebody supposing the community forces participants into mediation). Durova^Charge! 19:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

What do "enforced" or "enforceable" mean in this context? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

See the third question on the new FAQ. Durova^Charge! 00:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Should I write a FAQ for this?

The talk page has gotten pretty long and questions have been duplicating, which probably means that even though this is getting a lot of support the talk page has become confusing. I've been thinking of writing a FAQ for CEM in my user space. Would that be a good idea? Durova^Charge! 18:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

It will save a lot of time if you do so. Just responding to the questions that you so eloquently answered in talk, could be a good start. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

It always seems that important stuff comes up at once. I'll open my text browser. Durova^Charge! 21:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Here it is: User:Durova/Community enforceable mediation FAQ. :) Durova^Charge! 23:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I like the faq, lets move it into the project mainspace as a subpage and reference it from the mainpage of this proposal. Navou ^banter / _contribs 23:56, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Do you want to be bold about it? Sometimes people get testy. I got bitten not long ago and I don't want to bolster any negative impression. Durova^Charge! 00:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) Always revertable. moved here. Durova, and others; your doing a great job. I can't wait untill we can move this into a test phase. Navou ^banter / _contribs 00:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Referenced here Navou ^banter / _contribs 00:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I cleared up the duplication. I'd like to move forward with this too. Haven't heard back from SlimVirgin or Armed Blowfish about yesterday's changes. I hope my comments didn't get buried in all the threaded discussion. I'm about ready to revert those edits, which inserted standard provisions from other mediations that wouldn't be compatible with a binding community process. I'd just rather not step on any toes. Durova^Charge! 00:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

You won't step on mine. If I moved too soon, revert me. I sometimes get over enthused. :P Navou ^banter / _contribs 00:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, you're a joy to have around here. I've been thinking about moving this into the experimental phase. It looks like all the arbitrators have spoken who intend to comment. With their unanimous support and Jimbo's backing I've been of the mind that this could enter the experimental phase when it gets a case. Yet it doesn't seem appropriate to canvass. Once this gets underway I suppose we'd have referrals from other mediations: either they refer people who may need binding remedies or they send us their overflow for nonbinding stuff (enforceable remedies are an option here, not a requirement, and we have plenty of volunteers). What are your thoughts? Durova^Charge! 01:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree, it most certainly won't harm. I see comments addressing perceived problems, and the I see those perceived problems being or have been taken care of. I don't see any outright objections. I think we should be good to go. Perhaps a reposting on the admin noticeboard (not AN/I), and village pump proposals. I don't know if posting this on WP:CN is appropriate, but it would not hurt. Clue me in on the first case, so I can get my hands wet as soon as possible! v/r Navou ^banter / _contribs 01:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

AN would be better than ANI and CN is a slam dunk. Village Pump makes sense also. Also the community bulletin board and renew the proposal's RFC. But wait a few moments while I undo the well meaning changes from last night. And we ought to send word to all of the trainees. And before we dash off, what exactly would we be stating? A request for experimental cases or a request for more review? Durova^Charge! 01:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, the mediator involement language had already been restored by someone else. I took out confidential mediation. Seems that that page is ready. Durova^Charge! 01:48, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) I have not been following this closely except for the past couple of days, so I may have missed some discussion elswhere. In you opinion, do we have consensus? If so, I would state the request for cases. What are you thoughts? Navou ^banter / _contribs 01:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

SlimVirgin didn't follow up on her misgivings after I replied to those points even though she did post to this page and edit the article afterward, so there doesn't seem to be anybody opposing. Would you like to do the honors? I don't know whether it's past this week's deadline at the Signpost, but a note to their tip line wouldn't hurt. I'm going offline. Take the ball and run with it if you wish. You're doing well. :) Durova^Charge! 02:32, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm... how about calling it "Moderated negotiation"? I think moderation includes both the help you provide the parties in reaching a resolution (as in mediation), as well as the extra control involved in the process. — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 04:18, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

See this.[2] Durova^Charge! 15:28, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe "Community enforceable moderated negotiation"? "Mediation" and "enforceable", not to mention the screening/judgement, really don't seem to go together. — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 17:06, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Have a look at Wikipedia_talk:Community_enforceable_mediation#Perhaps_name_this_something_else.3F. Durova^Charge! 17:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't see anything new there. Or am I not thinking far enough outside the box for you??? — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 18:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, that thread has my full discussion of bureaucratese. This page has also accumulated a lot of parallel threaded topics and multitopic threads, so much so that I sometimes wonder whether anyone besides myself has followed the whole thing. That's one reason I wrote up the FAQ yesterday: the same questions kept popping up in different places. Regarding your proposed name change, I guess mediation is simpler than moderated negotiation. When I hosted the prototype with Piotrus and Ghirla it was a mediation. Durova^Charge! 19:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Objections

I can't see how this is going to work. If you make it non-voluntary, you're effectively creating another ArbCom situation, but without elections; if you make it voluntary, I can't see anyone ever agreeing to it, given that the penalties or agreed outcome (whatever you want to call it) can result in blocks and other sanctions. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not understanding this part, I was under the impression that all parts of WP:DR were voluntary designed with many options in mind, as far as, "do I want to attempt MedCab, 3O, RFC, CEM, etc?" Could you clarify? Navou ^banter / _contribs 03:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

In turn, I'm afraid I don't understand your point. :-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I have misunderstood then. Bah. :P Navou ^banter / _contribs 03:52, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Think of this as a binding contract that people enter voluntarily. See Jimbo's positive response.[3] Durova^Charge! 16:52, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

The other problem is that we have no way of choosing mediators. So if someone refuses to take part in this, on the grounds that the mediators are unelected and untrained, then the situation could proceed directly to ArbCom on the grounds that dispute resolution (this community-enforced thing) was turned down. That's patently unfair. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I would have no problem with volunteer mediators... Its volunteer, I don't see any need to elect, select, confirm mediaters. If mediation were turned down, there are alternatives. There are other portions of DR. What are your thoughts? Navou ^banter / _contribs 03:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

My thoughts are that if a troll wants to take someone to ArbCom in order to cause trouble, all they would have to do under this arrangement is request community-enforced mediation and if the other editor turned it down, they could move straight to RfAr. This is currently not the case with Medcab because it's totally informal, so it doesn't count, though it is the case with MedCom. Here we are introducing a third mediation option (when the first two arguably don't work or aren't very active), with a very unclear status. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I think I understand where you are coming from here; if the issue is severe, and the editors cannot agree on mediation (arguably when the first mediation alternatives don't work) is RfAR the next logical solution? I think so. Is the declination of WP:CEM an automatic referral to ArbCom? I don't think it has to be. Perhaps we need to write this status into the proposal.

side note: A pre-requisite to RfAR is previous DR attempts. Navou ^banter / _contribs 03:52, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Exactly and that's a big problem. With MedCom, there's an election, people are trained in some way (or have a structure within which they can ask for advice). With MedCab, there's nothing, and I've seen some truly awful "mediators" turn up and proceed to make things a thousand times worse; people with 100 edits, no knowledge of content policies etc etc. So turning down a MedCab mediation doesn't mean RfAr is the next step, because MedCab is informal and spotty in terms of quality, but turning down a MedCom mediation does mean RfAr may be the next step. The question, therefore, is whether CEM wants to be more like MedCom or MedCab. If the former, it needs some formal way of choosing and training mediators so there's a form of quality control. If the latter, then it can't have its sanctions supported by blocks and other admin actions, and it can't be a formal part of the dispute resolution process. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure "mediation" is the optimal word for this proposal. In any case, I would just like to point out that although you can proceed directly to ArbCom from MedCom, the contents of MedCom mediations cannot be used as evidence for ArbCom, even if the mediation was public. — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 03:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC) Note: It is not obvious from the current arrangement, but this was a response to SlimVirgin's 03:23, 20 March 2007 message. 04:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

The Mediation Committee screens applicants with the two-oppose rule. Basically, if any two Mediation Committee members oppose an applicant, the applicant's nomination fails. People other than MedCom members are invited to voice their opinions.

As for internal support, the Mediation Committee has a private mailing list and a private IRC channel. The Mediation Committee also have a chair, currently ^demon, who basically provides support to everyone else, as well as performing various maintainance tasks, etc.

Note that, as part of the nomination process, MedCom applicants are encouraged to take on a MedCom case. (See Wikipedia:Mediation Committee#Nominations_for_mediator.) Generally, the applicant asks the involved parties if they would like the applicant to mediate, or would prefer to wait for someone more experienced to take their case.

— Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 05:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Note that nothing prevents people from filing an arbcom request without any intermediate steps: I've seen this done essentially as blatantly as "I'm not bothering with those, as they can't ban all the vexacious people that so clearly need it". And there's nothing stopping the arbcom from rejecting any cases where they feel there's not been sufficient recourse to earlier steps in DR. So I don't think that's a killer objection in itself, but it's reason to avoid adding any characterisation of this as any sort of 'last step before AC' as such. Alai 05:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

My concern ties in with yours below, in that the proposal is to create yet another class of mediator, when we already have two classes, one formal and in general good, the other informal and in general not. I'm wondering why the effort that would go into this couldn't simply go into helping the MedCom. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 11:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

The way I see it, is that for those editors that qualify (i.e. these that know the ropes and are familiar with ArbCom proceedings), this could be a very useful alternative, that does not burden the MedCom or ArbCom. The mediator in this case is more of a facilitator than a full mediator, as most of the work is done by the participants themselves. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

SlimVirgin lists two different objections here. To break these down:

• An exploitive user might exploit this to force arbitration on another editor when they should be in normal WP:DR.

If that summary is correct then this seems like a non-objection. If a user is that devoted to gaming the system then normal WP:DR is probably a waste of time anyway. Either that conflict does belong in arbitration or that's just an abusive editor who goes around bothering people, in which case the community could impose its own sanctions (also using the failed CEM as a reason).

• SV asserts that this has no training system or qualifications requirements for mediators.

Actually this does have a training system. See Wikipedia:Community enforceable mediation/Requests. So far things have been small enough to handle that aspect informally: people approach me directly with a request to become CEM trainees, I ask them what dispute resolution experience they have and why they're interested in the program. Seven people have become trainees so far with more potential trainees in reserve. I assure you, none of them are new users with only 100 edits - far from it. I've sent them over to the active mediation venues to help out with their backlogs and received thanks (but no complaints) for their help. Once this launches training will take place via private discussions of ongoing CEM cases. I decide when each trainee is ready to operate independently. As the program grows that process probably will become more formalized. Elections or a selection committee are feasible options. Durova^Charge! 16:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

There needs to be an appeals process

Since there's a ban on withdrawing after sanctions have been agreed upon, there's obviously the assumption that editors may later decide they don't like the sanctions. Problem is, they may well be right that the sanctions are too harsh on them, and they just didn't realize it at the time. And the community approvals process is useless to control this, since I can't imagine too many people denying someone who did something bad the remedies they ask to be given. -Amarkov moo! 03:18, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

This system has three separate filters to safeguard against that:

1. The mediator screens away individuals who don't demonstrate understanding of this process. That includes early closure if the participant doesn't understand.
2. The mediator screens the proposal before submitting it to the community.
3. The community screens the proposal before making it binding.

It's unlikely that participants would really want to impose overly harsh remedies upon themselves. More typically, people just lose perspective. Nobody enjoys being blocked and frivolous appeals are commonplace. In order for the sanctions option to have any meaning it does need to be binding. Just as community banned editors can appeal to ArbCom, participants from this program can appeal there also. Durova^Charge! 16:20, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Proposed solution to appeals question

Perhaps we could write this into the proposal, something along the lines of allowing the editor subject to the agreement, post the request to WP:CN; appeal to the community. What are you thoughts? Navou ^banter / _contribs 03:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Direct CN appeal is far too gameable. Theoretically I wouldn't mind a second full round of CEM if both parties agreed to reenter negotiation. Durova^Charge! 16:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I agree. Navou ^banter / _contribs 22:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I certainly think that there should be a way to reopen debate if both parties agree, but that doesn't really solve the problem. Not everybody is going to be willing to discuss it again, even if the other person did get an unfair sanction. An appeals process that requires someone who is consistently against your opinion to redo the entire thing won't work. -Amarkov moo! 22:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I am under the impression that CEM requires assent from both parties before CEM can begin. And editors can withdraw form mediation before the binding accept is returned. I'm not clear of why redress is required with all these checks in place. Navou ^banter / _contribs 00:05, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I also doubt that people would voluntarily adopt measures that are too stringent. I mean, people aren't going to siteban themselves. Could you give a concrete example of what you mean? Durova^Charge! 00:42, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

The issue is heat of the moment decisions. When you are involved in a dispute, you sometimes do not make decisions well. So someone may allow themselves to be pressured into harsh remedies, and then in review three months later decide that the restrictions placed on them are unfair. That won't happen often, but it would be nice to have a way to fix it if it does. -Amarkov moo! 04:07, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Not too sure about the ways and means

I definitely agree that there's a "gap in the market" for some sort of "binding mediation" at the "low end" of behaviour issues, on content issues, or combinations of the two. ("Highways" and "Macao/mainland China" spring to mind, for example.) Sometimes this is just a matter of getting enough eyeballs on an issue to get an established consensus (or at least a workable compromise on which to draw the cease-fire line), after which the problem either goes away, or becomes more clearly delineated as a matter of disruption, though often there's much fuzziness in both ends of that process (getting the input, and determining what's ceased to be a lively disagreement and has started being ignoring the will of the community). But I'm not sure this looks like an effective means of doing this, for some of the reasons mooted above, and it seems to have some odd features I'm not sure I follow the rationale for -- though it's of course quite possible that I'm thinking of different classes of problems and different likely solutions. Two things I'm particularly struggling with:

• If I understand it correctly (from this talk page, it's apparently not made explicit on the project page), this envisages what's in effect yet-another-mediation-committee. Is there a pressing reason why a somewhat distinct mediation process would require wholly different mediators? If not, I'd be very much inclined to cry "Occam!", and merge the available pool with one or both of the existing MCs. (Keeping the separate documentation, though.)
• Is this an efficient way to keep the community "in the loop"? It seems to anticipate that the community will be involved only after the mediation has been essentially successful, to copper-fasten it in case of later backsliding (if that's a fair summary). That seems to introduce two classes of problems: excessive CN-bothering over what's perhaps a "solved problem" at that stage; and cases that never get to that stage, and hence don't benefit from (I hope I don't need to add quotes there, too) greater community involvement. Where the issue is anything other than a bilateral interpersonal one, getting input from the community at an earlier stage would seem useful (but again, this may go to the "different problems" thing).

Perhaps I'm trying to over-engineer this in prospect too much, or letting better be the enemy of good, but I'd rather be clearer where this is actually going, than let it accrete in a way that may or may not be ultimately desirable. Alai 05:14, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

In response to the first point, all other mediations are nonbinding. This is binding mediation. As such, it would be the only alternative to arbitration where users could come when the trust level has dropped enough that they're no longer prepared to shake hands and agree to play nicely together.

And in response to the second point, all CEM cases get announced upon opening at WP:CN and a separate page for input opens along with the mediation page. So people who want to comment can offer their input throughout the process. They'll comment from the sidelines rather than threading within the mediation discussion itself.

These questions are answered in the FAQ. Durova^Charge! 16:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

You'll notice I didn't ask, what's different about this as a mediation process, I asked "why a somewhat distinct mediation process would require wholly different mediators". Alai 22:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually there's some overlap: most of the trainees here do have experience with other mediations. This program expects its mediators to understand arbitration precedents also and the mediators need to be well enough informed that they can recommend specific cases for the participants to read and also screen proposed solutions for practicality. Also the success of this program will depend in good measure on the skill of its mediators in screening the participants: both parties to a binding agreement should be making a free and informed decision. That's an important difference between the mediator's role here when compared against nonbinding mediations. Durova^Charge! 00:25, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Procedural inquiry

Should RfC be tried before CEM? If CEM is declined and RfC was not tried, should RfC be tried before RfArb?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  06:27, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

If this relates to today's queries at my talk page, I regard that as a prototype case. Since that predates this proposal it isn't bound by this proposal's terms (although if you both think this stuff is reasonable we could renew it and move forward per this model). RFAR already gained acceptance so you have various open doors.

If this is a more general question, article content RFC is my favorite type of dispute resolution. That fits most situations and when it's effective it's fast and friendly. I don't object in principle to people coming here directly, but if a case doesn't at least open then go ahead and give RFC a shot. Durova^Charge! 05:29, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Ideas for a name not including the word "mediation"

As I have explained above, I do not believe "mediation" is quite the right word for this, because of the enforceable remedies and the veto power of the moderator and community, among other things. So, here's some other ideas:

• Community arbitration (CA)
• Community moderated arbitration (CMA)
• Community arbitrated moderation (CAM)
• Community arbitrated negotiation (CEN)
• Negotiated arbitration (NA)
• Community moderation (CM)
• Enforceable moderation (EM)
• Community enforceable moderation (CEM)
• Moderation Committee (ModCom)

I think one of the last three would be best - the fact that people agree to the remedies makes it not exactly arbitration either. Actually, I think I like "Moderation Committee" the best.

Thanks,
Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 16:40, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Suppose an editor HelpI'mFrustrated is coming to dispute resolution for the first time. HelpI'mFrustred has been active for two months or so and got into an edit war. Somebody offered a link to WP:DR and this person is trying to figure out which option is appropriate.

The best name for this proposal would be the name that gives HelpI'mFrustrated a concise basis to make the right decision.

I'm strongly opposed to any permutation that includes the word arbitration (confusing and inaccurate). I strongly support having enforceable in the name (descriptive) and don't like committee (could give the wrong impression, not very informative). Although I'm cool on moderation as a substitute for mediation, I wouldn't rant against it if other editors liked that wording. Durova^Charge! 05:45, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Per naming; I am happy with the status quo and will likely nonsupport any name change from what it is currently now. Navou ^banter / _contribs 15:04, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Durova: So maybe you and I can agree on changing the name to "Community enforceable moderation"?  :: Navou and Durova: Suppose HelpI'mFrustrated came over to MedCom instead. So, suppose I am trying to explain that mediation is totally voluntary and non-enforceable, and no I'm not going to block anyone or impose any other remedies. But wait! There's another kind of mediation that is enforceable (although the remedies are voluntary). So this would make it more difficult for me to explain to HelpI'mFrustrated the nature of the mediation I am conducting.

If we call this moderation, the concept of which can cover both the mediation and enforcement/judgement aspects of this proposal, I think, then we can make generalisations about Mediation on Wikipedia that include MedCom and MedCab, but not this proposal.

— Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 16:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Let's see whether other people think this needs a change. Durova^Charge! 02:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Armed, you have a good point. I must assume, that if you are editing the project, then surely you must be able to understand the difference between MedCom and CEM. I would that perhaps write the difference into the actual proposal, at this time, I believe renaming may be unneeded.

Thanks!  : ) Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 13:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I've put some thought into this. I personally think "mediation" is apropos, but I can understand why some people would dissent. What about replacing "mediation" with "negotiation"? "Moderation" implies a rules-of-order control on the process. Again though, I think mediation is fine. The fact it is named "community enforceable" clearly distinguishes it from MedCom and MedCab, emphesizing the "enforcement/judgement aspects" in my opinion. Vassyana 17:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

"Negotiation" is fine with me.  : ) Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 17:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Negotiation is the extension of mediation. Navou ^banter / _contribs 17:43, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Negotiation is a broader word that mediation. It include mediation, moderation, and situations where the parties try to find an agreement without the help of a neutral third party. — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 17:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Fundamental differences exist in Mediation and Negotiation. I believe the former is correct in this context. Navou ^banter / _contribs 18:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Begin trial run

In the absense of any strong objections, I believe we have consensus to begin this programs trial run. We do have issues such as the question of renaming, if this is needed, it can be done while the program is running. I will leave this section open for a few hours, then remove the proposed tag and write this into DR. v/r Navou ^banter / _contribs 12:38, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

There was a trial run at User:Durova/Mediation. I do not see any reason not to have another trial run as soon as you receive another request. You could add this to the list at WP:DR, although I would reccomend listing it as experimental for now. — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 13:01, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

That was not a trial run but a prototype. This proposal was an outgrowth of something two editors tried on the fly at my suggestion. The trial run here would be a 90 day experimental phase. Durova^Charge! 02:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay. Erm, why not just try one mediation (or two or three mediations, if you prefer), of whatever length, and call that a trial run. 90 days seems rather arbitrary. Not that it really matters, but... meh. — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 02:30, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Mainly because if we designate X number of cases as the trial then nearly everyone would prefer to be case X+1. Durova^Charge! 02:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure about that. There are many people who prefer informal mediation because formal mediation feels like escalating the dispute. Similiarly, some people might feel less intimidated by a trial run. — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 03:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

E-mail

Durova, why do you keep removing that people may choose to conduct the mediation by e-mail? This is an option the mediators always offer, so far as I know. If you remove it, some people may not consent to the mediation. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I think Durova replied up there. [4] Perhaps the word mediation is confusing, I personally would consider this to be more like moderation, see above. [5]

I am reminded of something Essjay wrote about the differences between Mediation and Arbitration on Wikipedia. It was linked to from his talk page archives. You're an administrator, so maybe you can find it. Anyways, this proposal doesn't seem to be either.

In any case, if people don't like this option, the Mediation Cabal and the Mediation Committee would still love to help.  : )

— Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 13:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Private mediation does not seem appropriate in the context of this proposal. I would not agree to solutions that originate in secret. Navou ^banter / _contribs 15:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

What difference would it make how the solution was arrived at? Surely what the community will agree to is the end result. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

An editor may see the solutions and question "Where did that come from, I don't get it" then referencing the mediation page go "Oh, that makes since, Endorse. Navou ^banter / _contribs 16:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I'm being dense again, but I still don't get this. Two editors agree to impose sanction on themselves. Each agrees with the sanction that will be applied to himself and to the other. Why would the community ever oppose that solution? And especially why would anyone oppose it simply because he hadn't seen how it was arrived at? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:23, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Navou, the discussion between the parties and the mediator/moderator can be private, but their agreement will be public. The community will enforce the agreement, not the discussion.... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:26, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

(reduce indent) I do not think I would ever be able to support/certify remedies if I can not see the discussion behind them. Navou ^banter / _contribs 16:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Can you say why not? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll explain my concerns a bit more. I see a real danger here of us creating a set of pages that people will use as a platform to attack other users, and generally to cause trouble. We've all seen the chaos the ArbCom workshop pages can degenerate into, sometimes making disputes worse, not better. The danger here is that we would have a page for the disputants, and then a separate page for anyone else who wants to comment, which boils down to encouraging a public brawl. I think there needs to be a built-in safeguard against that for people who are serious about mediation, but who don't want to feed trolls and troublemakers by exchanging views in public. As Jossi says, the agreement will be made public for the community to endorse. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

In any case, Navou, that is an option for parties involved. If the parties want to have their discussions public, that would be fine. Others may want to do it privately and that should be respected. In my experience, when two editors and a mediator/facilitator engage privately, they can be more candid with one another as well as more open to discuss tricky issues than when people are looking over their shoulders. If after their private discussion they come back to the community and say: "This is what we have agreed to", what is the harm? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:58, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I would like to hear Durova's opinion on this. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

The very foundation of this project is openness and one hand knowing what the other hand is doing. Secrecy, in my opinion, and on a fundamental level, is contrary to the project. As Durova said above, and I agree with this, once in a while there might be a piece of sensitive information, but if the entire dispute is sensitive information, perhaps the dispute does not fit into the context of the CEM solution. Navou ^banter / _contribs 17:09, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think ≈ jossi ≈ is right. The final agreement is the only part that really needs to be public. Private mediations can work out better than pulic ones. Also see WP:Mediation#Why_should_mediation_be_confidential.3F, which applies to the Mediation Committee, but is a good theory anywhere, in my opinion. — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 17:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) First, I'm really grateful that people have taken this proposal so seriously and have waited for my input at this thread. To answer SlimVirgin's question, I'm not sure from your comments how to expand on what I've already stated at this page in reply. Private deliberations certainly have a place in some forms of dispute resolution. Yet this is a community process: it provides observers their own comment page, it trains new mediators by discussions about ongoing cases, and it asks the community to ratify binding agreements. There wouldn't be any way for the community to reach an informed decision about an agreement that had been reached in private. CEM isn't for everyone and that type of situation would be better off in other venues. And to speak to SlimVirgin's broader reservations, I agree that exploitation would happen if this venue accepted the wrong types of cases. That's why a key feature of the mediator's role is to screen potential cases for suitability and close cases that start to turn into circuses. We're looking for disputants who have enough maturity that they can sit down and impose some parameters on themselves without going through full arbitration. Those people do exist and right now there's no suitable option for them. Jimbo likes this and every member of the arbitration committee who has commented on this proposal likes it too. Why not give this a trial run to see whether this will work? At the end of 90 days the community would ratify it so there isn't much to lose by giving CEM a chance. Durova^Charge! 02:52, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, fair enough. So long as people can choose Medcom instead, without penalty, if they prefer private mediation. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:29, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Going slightly off topic, the Mediation Committee has a private MediationWiki now, which could help in disputes that would be benefit from private mediation, but involve too many participants to effectively conduct mediation by email.  : ) — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 06:41, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

That's an excellent idea. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:43, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!  : ) See here. — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 06:47, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I can't speak for SlimVirgin and ≈ jossi ≈, but perhaps we could try a compromise like suggesting people who want private mediation go over to the Mediation Committee? It might not be customary to suggest other forms of dispute resolution in the text of the proposal, but you do seem to agree that CEM isn't for everyone. — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 03:24, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Durova. I am still concerned about how all this will unfold, bur there is nothing better for a "proof of concept" than to ... prove the concept. Let's go ahead with a trial run and see where it gets us. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

To Armedblowfish, if people approached me who wanted confidential mediation I'd make my best effort to refer them to the right venue for their needs. Durova^Charge! 13:58, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the long response time. That would be good, Durova.  : ) Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 04:11, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Looking good!

Looking really good, Durova. Thanks for coming up with a good idea and bring it together. Look forward to see this process being utilized. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:44, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for all your hard work on this, Durova. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:44, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I am also mostly happy with this.  : ) Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 06:48, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm also excited to see how this goes. Not from a lack of effort on Durova's part, that's for sure. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 07:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

This will be interesting :) Good luck, and well done to Durova and anyone who has been/will be involved. Cheers, Daniel Bryant 07:51, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

My thanks go to the seven people who volunteered to become community mediator trainees and to the many Wikipedians who took an interest in this and challenged the proposal to make it as good as possible - especially Piotrus and Ghirla who took a chance and trusted me back in December. If this works out it'll be worth all the effort. Cheers, Durova^Charge! 01:11, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

A nutshell version?

I took a quick glance at this proposal, & it seems to me to be rather complex. Could someone write a "nutshell" version of this? Summarize the whole proposal in a sentence or two, as has been done for other policies & guidelines? -- llywrch 17:40, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Good suggestion. I hope the result is satisfactory? Durova^Charge! 00:22, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I want to see a sample case. SYSS Mouse 03:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Durova/Mediation That was the prototype. Durova^Charge! 04:38, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Template and Infobox request

Anyone with a good working knowledge create a template and inputbox for the requests page. My attempts are in the history. Thanks in advance for the help. Navou ^banter / _contribs 21:47, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll be happy to assist with that, if you can tell me what is exactly needed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Contract law

At first this didn't make sense to me, but then I thought of contract law whereby two parties both feel they can gain by making an agreement, but only if a third party (the law) will enforce it. Maybe someone familiar with the pitfalls of contract law might have some insight or good ideas to share about this. WAS 4.250 05:32, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

That's one good way of putting this. Durova^Charge! 08:57, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

How does an editor remove their name from a request. Proposed change to WP:CEM.

How does an editor remove their name from a unilateral request ? My username was added by an editor to make up the two names but I have no content dispute with them at this time and they have never used my talk page (i.e. never ever ! so kind of out of the blue). If someone adds your name then is it valid to just remove all references to your name thus indicating that there is no second party. How do you indicate that this is unilateral as opposed to a mutual decision to use WP:CEM ? Should an editor have used usertalk between the editors first to mutually decide this action as opposed to one unilaterally, choosing this forum (i.e. IMHO forum shopping) ? I propose that the WP:CEM asks that,

• "One editor should not unilaterally decide to use this forum without prior consultation with the other editor or editors using their user talk pages."

...or wording to that effect. Basically it would be a waste of your time if there is only one person present especially if it is unlikely that the others would be cajoled into signing up. Ttiotsw 00:30, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't see that there's a need to remove your name from a request. Just make it clear that you won't participate, and it can't go forward. Consent is required from both editors, and it shouldn't be held against you if you never agreed to use this in the first place. -Amarkov moo! 04:19, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I say

This page does not appear to be active. Is anything still being done with CEM? Perhaps we could link to a few med cases that used it succesfully? >Radiant< 12:20, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Whats your angle? There is one active case with the last edit as of this posting here dated 21:01, 20 May 2007 Local. Additionally, it appears one party of a two party dispute is attempting to start a mediation. Please review the /Requests subpage for recent activity. I'm not sure tagging as historical or equivalent (if I am reading into your post too much, please correct me) is appropriate as its first run is not yet complete. Navou 12:31, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

My angle is curiosity, and wondering where the activity lies. I had not noticed the requests ilnk near the bottom, so thanks. >Radiant< 12:44, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I encourage curiosity. :P If you see any disputes that this venue may be useful, please feel free to throw some this way. Any suggestions how we can make the requests area more visible? Navou 13:11, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Put it in a big purple box with <blink> tags? :P >Radiant< 13:12, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

With respect for Radiant's desire to keep Wikipedia namespace clear of cruft, there's no pressing reason to change the original schedule: CEM has been implemented under a 90 day trial phase and the community will decide whether to keep it at the end of that time. We're in the middle of that phase right now and there's no need to change the schedule. This was never the type of program that was likely to take off like a rocket, so give it its natural chance and if it works Wikipedia will be better off - if it doesn't work it'll get marked historical. Durova^Charge! 18:56, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Experimental phase

From WP:CEM The experimental phase will run for three months. At the end of that time the community will decide whether to keep the program, modify it and keep it, or close it and mark it historical.

We have crossed that line. We've not had much success in the way of successfully mediated cases, however, I would like to pose the question of what to do now. My suggestion is a modification. Its a good principal, just not very widely used.

I'm not suggesting to mark historical and move on. I'd much rather leave this in the dispute resolution toolbox. I'm with the school of thought, the more tools, the better. Surely this can be applied here. Navou ^banter 00:41, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Fine by me. Let's see what other Wikipedians have to say. Thanks for all your help, Navou. You've been a trooper. Durova^Charge! 01:39, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I still have concerns with this, but since they're about how often this will actually be useful and how much people will even attempt to use this, I have no objection to leaving it as an option. -Amarkov moo! 04:48, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I suggest that we extend the experimental phase another 3 months. I want to see how well this process works in practice. If it is still not used much in 3 months, I would suggest it be taken off the map. Until real results on how the process works comes in, I don't want this to have a permanent posting. Cheers. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 22:39, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Agree with eagle. Its easy to remove, hard to get consensus. Maybe it takes time for a new process to bed in and find its niche. It seems reasonably sensible and may become wider used - the extra time is no hardship. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 22:42, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm agreeable to revisiting in three months. Sounds like a good idea. Navou ^banter 22:47, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

• Links to some succesful cases please? >Radiant< 13:51, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Check the /Requests subpage. Navou ^banter 14:00, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Hm, I found two closed cases, one that didn't work out after two months, and one that was not accepted by one of the two parties. That does not sound too promising. So I suppose what this needs is broader advertising, and more cases? >Radiant< 14:06, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Expanded number of participants?

We've gotten the chance to mediate disputes that have more than two editors. Would anyone object to taking these on at the mediator's discretion? The same basic parameters would apply: all involved editors must agree before any sanctions could be implemented. Durova^Charge! 00:34, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I thought about purple box and some blink tags :) No, in seriousness, you and I agree. I know Durova has suggested it to disputes before. I've coded it into DR and the template, but I'm game for fresh ideas. Navou ^banter 14:27, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Process issue

There is a bit of a problem with using this venue: there is no discussion of how to initiate a CEM or where to go to do so. The article goes from the introduction straight to “Format”, which begins, “The participants receive a page to resolve their differences and work out appropriate remedies.” From whom? What is the page called? Where do you go to ask for one? I really don’t know the answer myself.

I’d also like to suggest an addition to the final part of the process. Since this mediation procedure is focused mostly on content issues, it would be a good idea for the closing mediator to post the community-endorsed agreement on the talk pages of the affected article(s), including a link to the mediation page. This offers two benefits. First, it reveals an acceptable compromise worked out as mutually acceptable by experienced, knowledgeable editors who are strong advocates of opposing viewpoints. Others tempted to edit-war might be challenged not to do so by reviewing what has gone before and worked, which would contribute to the increased stability of contentious articles. Secondly, it would show an example of how such experienced editors with adversarial positions were able to work out a constructive compromise (not to mention that, yes, Virginia, editors can work out such a compromise on their own initiative without edit wars or admin-imposed “time outs”). Askari Mark (Talk) 22:34, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Historical?

I've taken the bold move of going ahead and marking this {{historical}}. The experimental phase has ended, nothing ever really took off here, and it seems this project died a peaceful and quiet death. No disrespect to the creators though, it would've been nice had this worked out. I've also removed it from the {{dispute-resolution}} template. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 17:00, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Primordial soup: Controversial statements tagged "citation needed" since at least Aug 2012

A query was added in WT:EVOL that might benefit from a chemist's input as well:

Primordial soup: Controversial statements tagged "citation needed" since at least Aug 2012

There are some key uncited statements relating to peptide chain termination in Miller–Urey and Oró experiments. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 05:51, 20 September 2018 (UTC)