Wikipedia talk:Mediation Committee/Archive/1

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

[Untitled]

User:Mediator has taken upon his/her-self to create an alternate structure that is not something that everyone is in agreement with. There may be some benefits to have a Mediator role account but the Mediator has taken a lot on without consulting anyone or thinking it through carefully. This might be a place to discuss what the problems with User:Mediator are, so that the Mediation Committee can benefit from such discussion. Mediation should be voluntary, i.e. someone should be able to know that the mediators are somewhat neutral and willing to listen to both sides of a dispute. While anyone could be a mediator, a mediation committee may provide some good structure, and a place where it can be discussed.

Mediators may not always follow the tradition role model of mediation. In all cases they should strive to achieve conciliation through negotiation. Transformative justice principles adopt well to the mediation context. Mediators listen to both sides, they try to help one put oneself in the other's position. Mediators try to resolve differences in a mutually agreeable manner. Mediators avoid procedure, they use and set ground rules so meaningful discussions take place; they try to get the parties to listen to each other. — Alex756 19:26, 11 Oct 2003 (UTC)

--- moved from the article page by sannse 17:01, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I'll probably move the content at User:Mediator/candidates here, pending discussion with Anthere, Eclect, etc. However we decide to have mediation, the people who'd be good mediators remain fairly constant. Martin 16:58, 15 Oct 2003 (UTC)

It is true that good mediators remain constant, so we may hope they will be interested in both concepts.

However, it must be noted that the idea is *not* that Jimbo has to approve anyone as mediator. Remember, anyone can be a "public" mediator anytime, and this does not have to be approved by Jimbo first hand. Everyone should be free to register here. But anyone, and of course Jimbo, is free as well to indicate they disagree with one of the persons listed here as being mediator. Perhaps, if several disagree with one of the persons listed here, it should not be offered to be mediator.

When a user will ask for Alex type of mediation, he will probably choose the mediator he wants to help him in the conflict. Similarly, it could be imagined that when asking (or accepting) mediation from User:Mediator, a user could just say he absolutely refuse that a given candidate help. It is mostly a question of trust. If a user in conflict does not trust, the mediation will clearly fail. It may be necessary that a mediator name is explicitely rejected.

I am quite optimistic on that point, as I think the group of mediators are also a group of trust, and one mediator will probably not hand off the user access to someone not showing skills as a mediator. Imho :-)

I am not quite sure what "Alex type mediation" is; my only point is that people can have a right to chose mediators. In practice of course, there are only some people who are mediators. I think a mediator who is not known to the people involved in mediation is a bit dangerous; it is better to know the person, and know where they are coming from; that makes it harder to allow them to steer the mediation in a direction they might want it to go in.

end of moved text

additional moved text

From User talk:Mediator

I don't like the idea of mediators being annonomous. I think they should use their own names. Noldoaran (Talk)[[.]] 17:49, Dec 8, 2003 (UTC)

They are not anonymous. There's a list of them at Wikipedia:Mediation Committee. Much of what is on this page was just 142's views on what mediation ought to involve. You should see Wikipedia:Mediation and Arbitration (proposal) for more current information on the process. Angela . 18:40, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I understand that. Let me rephrase what I said: I don't like the idea of mediators mediating annonomously. Noldoaran (Talk) 19:00, Dec 8, 2003 (UTC)

Oh right. Well, that should probably be discussed at Wikipedia talk :Mediation Committee then. Angela . 19:07, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

end of additional moved text

BTW. I have written some stuff on meta, as a possible framework for mediation. I confess I wasn't thinking primarily about the English wikipedia while doing it, but trying to find stuff that should work on foreign language wiki's as well, where Jimbo Wales can not perhaps have as direct an oversight as on the English wikipedia. That said, as I have been tinkering with it, I am beginning to gather courage that it might not turn out to be totally useless for the English wikipedia either. The files I have drafted so far are m:Mediation, and m:Mediation oversight procedure. They probably need to be prettyfied quite substantially, and maybe voted on, after everybody else on the committee has had a tinker in them as well. Please note, that I personally don't think we should go beyond the framework, into micromanageing the mediation process. Each mediation should be formed by the issues at hand and the people participating. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogostick 16:13, Dec 8, 2003 (UTC)

Reminding everyone that mediation is supposed to be consensual process.

[1] by user:Sannse ; about when and how to start mediation.
[2] by user:Delirium response to the above.
[3] by user:alex756 ; more emphasis on the consensual nature of the mediation process and the need to, at some point, have mediation proceedings private.

Message to all mediators

There have been suggestions made on the mailing list that we should have some sort of chairperson for this. Does anyone want to volunteer. Also, we need to decide whether it would be useful to have a mailing list. I don't mind being the admin for the list, unless someone else wants to do, but I don't think I've got time to chair the committee at the moment. Angela . 17:58, Jan 17, 2004 (UTC)

I think a mailing list would be useful, it would be great if you could admin that. Do you know how to set it up? I also feel unable to chair at the moment. I think we shouldn't choose a chair until Jimbo has confirmed the full list of mediators (especially as I want to suggest TufKat for chair), but we can certainly find out which of us is willing to do the job -- sannse 19:48, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I am still interested in being a part of the mediation process, and may be willing to be a chairman... What would that entail, exactly? My impression is that I would monitor mediation discussions and give private-type advice as necessary, to either committe members or parties to the dispute, and would also have a role in selecting people to be on the committee. I may be wrong in this, as the last couple days have been hectic and I haven't read everything on the subject from the mailing list, and what I have read, wasn't in order. I think I mentioned on the mailing list a while back that I have experience as a mediator in a former job, so chairman might be a good role for me. Tuf-Kat 20:36, Jan 18, 2004 (UTC)

I think that before saying Tuf Kat is the chair man, perhaps it would be nice to know precisely what the chair man is. I had an understanding of it, that was entirely different from what Tuf Kat is describing. Monitoring is discussed on meta, and Alex at least does not seem to consider monitoring is a good idea; private type advice are absolutely very important, but why would only the chairman provides some, why not all the members ? And last, why would only one person have a say in selecting people and not all members, or not all community ? I would like to know what is other people perception of what a chairman is. I thought it was more like a representant. Am I totally wrong here ? Tuf Kat, can you tell us more about what a chair man was in your previous job ? Do you think it is the best solution in this case ? Anthere

Oh, well then I think I confused an e-mail or something, because I thought that's what anthere had suggested -- I'm probably thinking of somebody else in a different context. I sent an e-mail to anthere and the others listed on this page.

Errr. No. I have no memory of having suggested that. Anthere

Having a chair that picks the commitee members and people what to do? No. I do not agree at all. Mediation is about people working together, not someone creating a hierarchy. If you need someone "in charge" it should be a coordinator who works to create training opportunities for volunteer mediators and who is available to just chat with mediators or direct them to another mediator who might have experience with dealing with a particular type of mediation conflict or discussion strategy. Mediation is supposed to be a private attempt at conflict resolution through a confidential consensual activity. If someone in mediation says, "no" it means "no". That is the kind of approach that mediators need to take, they are facilitators, not judges. There should be nobody in charge, just someone who makes sure that mediators have access to resources that they need and have someone to discuss strategies with. Just my opinion, for what it is worth. — Alex756 04:30, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC)

See above, and e-mail me Tucci528ATyahoo.com, Ilyrwch has weighed in to an informal cc list. (I essentially agree with Alex, I think a committee needs an organizer, but not anyone particularly more powerful than other members) Tuf-Kat 04:46, Jan 19, 2004 (UTC)

I finally succeeded to access wikipedia ! :-) I sent you all an email about that. I suppose that we should wait for others reactions. But I agree with what Alex wrote above, and with you TufKat, that we need an organiser, and someone to ensure things are just done very much. Anthere

Whats going on?

I have personally had conflict with fully 1/3rd of the mediation committe, in maybe the space of a week since creating Wikipedia:Requests for mediation. Two have called into question my abilities as an editor. Two have called into question if I may be a troll, and one committe member suggested on wikipedia:conflicts between users that insults might be accurate to use in describing me. I am not pleased. If I am so bad, ban me. If you are so bad, shape up. If you can't mediate or behave moderately, lets make some changes. Jack 08:32, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

The Title

Chairman and Members of the Committee, it is my consideration that this page could be moved to Wikipedia:Mediators, in order to follow the standard used by the Arbitrators. Otherwise, that page should be moved to Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee. My suggestion is but for the sake of consistency. -- Lord Emsworth 02:42, Jan 23, 2004 (UTC)

I see no problem with that. Either way round would be fine with me although I have a slight preference for "mediation committee" because it centers on our group nature rather than on us as individuals. -- sannse 11:05, 23 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I suggest that the arbitrators follow the standard used by the Mediators. I second Sannse : it is best to see us as a group than as a collection of individuals. Anthere

Suggestions

Chairman and Members of the Committee,

I beg to offer to your Committee certain suggestions. I hope to be forgiven if my suggestions have already been discussed and debated using your mailing lists, to which I am not privy, or if the determination of the process is the sole province of the members, and not of other persons.'

Firstly, I suggest that "Remember as well, that anything that will be said during the mediation will stay private, and will be used against you later on" (emphasis added) may have been a typographical error.

Secondly, I propose that a selection of a mediator by the entire committee might be too tedious a process. It is my suggestion that, in order to expedite matters, the Chairman be empowered to provide candidate mediators.

Thirdly, I propose that the venue for mediation be not always restricted to private e-mails. Each party should be able to express a preference as to whether mediation should occur at his or her own talk page, or through e-mail.

Fourthly, I propose that at the conclusion of each mediation, the mediator notify the community of the result thereof, either at a special page set up for the same purpose, or at some discussion page agreed upon by the committee. Such a notification should outline any agreement reached by the parties interested, or state that no agreement has been reached.

Fifthly, I propose that a reasonable time limit be set on mediations, so that the process does not drag on for indefinite periods of time. It is proposed further that the mediator be empowered to set whichever reasonable timetables he or she pleases, subject to the consent of the parties.

Sixthly, I propose that statistics of the mediation process be kept. Such statistics could allow others to judge which percentage of mediations were successful and unsuccessful, and how many proceeded to arbitration, and so on. The committee should designate a user (not necessarily a member) who would be responsible for making the necessary updates to these statistics.

Seventhly, I propose that an individual may not become a committee member save if he or she is an Administrator. The grant of the administratorship indicates the trust placed in the individual, and such trust seems entirely necessary for mediators.

Eighthly, I propose that mediators be not elected as arbitrators would be. In my opinion, one ought not to be forced to compete for the mediatorship. Rather, a process similar to the granting of administratorship could be used. A member would be nominated (either by himself or herself, or by another user subject to his or her acceptance), and then a vote could be taken on the said person's candidacy. Should a sufficient number be in favour, the grant of the post could be made.

Ninthly, I propose that the committee elect a Deputy Chairman to assist the Chairman.

I beg to request the consideration of my proposals.

-- Lord Emsworth 21:41, Jan 23, 2004 (UTC)

Though I am not on the mediation committee either, I generally agree with Lord Emsworth's suggestions. In particular, point three I believe may be especially useful when mediating multi-way article-content disputes, as happened over the Mother Theresa article. In those cases it may be better to have a mediator organizing discussion on the talk page and doing whatever else he or she deems helpful, rather than a flurry of private emails between a half-dozen participants. Point seven I think is also reasonable, as we have a relatively low bar for trustworthiness and participation to be made Administrator, and I think the mediators should meet those qualifications at the very least. Point eight is the only one I'm vaguely wary of. I do think it's best not to have lots of elections, but I think perhaps reconstituting the committee every year or so would be a good idea, with preference given to retaining current members whose performance in that role is seen positively by the community. --Delirium 02:07, Jan 24, 2004 (UTC)

We were using email for a while, but now all discussions are on the message boards.

Good point. :) Sannse's fixed that now.
I can see the advantage of this, but it is also important that those involved are happy with the mediator, so I think there has to be some option for them to choose.
That sounds a good idea.
I agree. That should definitely be done.
This has been raised on the message board. I agree it is important to have a time limit.
One problem with that is how do you decide a mediation was successful or unsuccessful?
This is on the message boards too. It's worth noting though not all of the arbitration committee are sysops.
I agree. There is no set number of mediators on the committee, and Jimbo said when he set it up that he expects the membership of this to be fairly fluid, so it's not like we have to choose between two people to be on it as both could be.
We're still undecided if we want a chairperson at the moment, let alone a deputy. :)

Thank you for your comments. My replies are just my personal opinions and are not meant to represent those of the committee. Angela . 03:15, Jan 24, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks you for giving your opinion. Most of these points have been raised in the discussion and another opinion is worthwhile. We have been initially using mailing lists, and some of the discussion have been reported on the message board.

Point 1 : is I think an excellent freudien slip. I am glad to see that someone is reading :-) thanks for noticing

Point 2 : has been discussed a lot, and is currently not decided. Generally speaking though, the committee is not willing to give to much power to a chair. Most mediators opinions is that there must be no notion of hierarchy between them, but that the chair must above all be an organiser.

Point 3 : means : email, phone, irc, icq, board ... I think you are right you should state it more clearly. However, I do not think talk pages are very suitable at that stage. If a public mediation was possible, it would already had been done. My own opinion is that a mediation entirely taking place on a user talk page would be out of the scope of the committee.

Point 4 : This has been discussed, and afaik, agreed widely upon.

Point 5 : This has been mentionned but there is no clear consensus on the point. It is probably best that reasonable time is used to achieve an agreement, but I do not think arbitrarily deciding of a time schedule in advance is a good idea. The mediator feeling is probably best.

Point 6 : We have not talked about that. I personnally do not think that human relationship may be drawn into equations ;-)

Point 7 : We have not been able to reach an agreement on that point yet. Some suggested that, since it would allow to avoid yet another vote. However, we do not want to exclude individuals who are very trusted, but have decided not to join the sysop team (and I do not think all sysops would make good mediators either). It has also been mentionned that why should be mediators necessarily be sysops (which often equal trusted) while some members of the arbitration team were not ?

Point 8 : that is likely roughly what will be agreed upon in the end.

Point 9 : as Angela said, some of us are not very convinced by the idea of having a chair...

I thank you Lord Emsworth. Anthere

Anthere, je vous remercie de répondre. (Pardon my French if it is incorrect.) And I further thank you, Angela, for answering. The success of the mediation would be measured by the mediator him or herself. A success could be defined as a mediation wherein the two parties have reached an agreement regarding the dispute. Perhaps "failure" is an inappropriate word for a lack of success, but I am hard pressed to think of a better term. As far as administratorship is concerned, I think that there could always be exceptions, especially for those who have declined it. But in the case of arbitration especially, it might become important because the arbiter (arbitrator?) could have to protect pages while they are being arbitrated, or have to ban non-compliant users, or have to delete pages as a result of his ruling. It would be more convenient to have the arbitrators (maybe not necessarily mediators) become administrators, as it would become tedious to keep having to ask another to perform tasks incidental to the arbitration. -- Lord Emsworth 18:42, Jan 24, 2004 (UTC)

Bcorr

" A candidate is accepted when there is no opposition from the Mediation Committee, no veto from Jimbo, and general agreement from the community. "

There was clearly no general community agreement <snip irrelevant> Sam Spade 19:43, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Sam, all four mediators who expressed an opinion were in favour of Brian joining the committee. Of the other contributors that commented, four out of five were also supportive. Yours was the only "no" vote (Perl changed his initial no vote to yes). I would say that is a clear enough consensus. Regards -- sannse (talk) 20:35, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

You are dismissing both Perls earlier objection (which his later reasoning for adjusting in no way reduces the value of) and DontMessWithThis's strange statements, which certainly were not favorable. I find you assesment of "consensus" troubling, and antheres desire to edit my comments likewise. Sam Spade 20:41, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Perls earlier objection was withdrawn - whatever the reason I respect that choice. I'm sorry, I did miss DontMessWithThis's comments - which were negatve but not an explicit "no" vote. I didn't see there were more further down the page. I also missed Cimon's comments - which were again not explicit, but also not an objection. I still see this as a general consensus for Brian's addition to the committee. -- sannse (talk) 20:50, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Well then it is your definition of "general community agreement" which I object to, clearly. Sam Spade 21:01, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Yes, it seems that's the area we disagree on. What is your definition of the phrase? Perhaps explaining that might help here? -- sannse (talk) 23:26, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I would define it as pretty much everybody agreeing. Something more than just a majority, but an overwhelmong majority. What I saw was a general lack of interest: along with some specific complaints matched by specific compliments. What I did not see was anything resembling a "general community agreement" unless said "community" only refers to admins ;) Sam Spade 00:46, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Sorry for replying with a lesser indent. Sam, the mediation committee, as established by decree of Jimbo, was intended by him to have a more fluid, and less stringent entry and exit procedure, not more, than the Arbitration

committee. As the arbitration commitee is going to be replenished by a form of voting, in which it is highly unlikely that unanimity will even be approached, much less acheived, I suggest you are comprehensively barking up the wrong tree here. -- Cimon avaro 22:08, Mar 21, 2004 (UTC)

Some people (like me) just don't chime in unless things look to be heading the "wrong" way. For the record, I support BCorr's inclusion in the Mediation Committee. (DontMessWithThis posted something about a subpage, but failed to provide the link, so I can't even evaluate whether I should have misgivings over it.) -- Cyan 01:04, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I thought that was a bit weird myself, and to be frank I don't think I am going to have much success in this discussion, nor do I think its too terribly important. Its more of the principle of the matter, and the general atmosphere here on the wiki that rules are only for the proles, not for the bourgeois admins. I don't mind a hierarchy, but I expect those on the top to be held to a higher standard, not a lower one. Sam Spade 01:15, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Lack of interest is a real problem. These votes are never going to attract the interest of a large part of the community (which actually, is true of "Requests for adminship" to some extent). I think in this case, "general community agreement" will have to be "enough agreement between those interested in commenting". "Enough" is going to be somewhat arbitrary unless we set a particular figure (70% of those commenting must be positive? 80%?). I think we need to look at ways of getting more interest in choosing mediators - one idea, off the top of my head, would be to have the vote at Requests for adminship. If we can get more participation it might make the community view more obvious. In Brian's case... we could reopen the vote and try and get more interest in participation - I think this would just cause delay at a time when we really need more mediators. Or we could go back to the old way of choosing mediators - direct appointment by Jimbo (which I am certain would lead to Brian being added to the committee). I believe the outcome would be the same in either case. So at this stage, especially with our need for more mediators, I think we should just leave be. -- sannse (talk) 21:01, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I agree that the same (IMO improper) result would be the same in almost any circumstance. Additionally I think that the phrase "general community agreement" does not in any way suggest a vote, but rather a near unaminity, which there clearly was not in this case. Its not the policy or process that needs changed here, its the obediance of it. In conclusion you will do as you like, and I will complain about it. Maybe one day you will run me off, or change your minds, or maybe we'll all lose interest, but this particular catagory of problem (admins ignoring policy) is not going to change anytime soon, and clearly Bcorr is a shoe-in for the "in crowd", general community agreement or no. Sam Spade 21:25, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure how else we would effectively assess community agreement. A vote (with discussion) seems the simplest way to do so. The required result of that vote might be "near unaminity" though.

I think also it's important to note that the "policy" is still a suggested one, as the page says "The way in which this committee will work is not yet fully decided" - and that includes all policies. I think one thing we urgently need to do is make these decisions on how we are going to work. That's something I want to work on over the next few weeks -- sannse (talk) 17:33, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)