Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Mediation Committee

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Narson (talk | contribs) at 20:49, 29 July 2012 (→Close MedCab). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

The Mediation Committee has been disbanded. Archives of old discussions can be accessed below.

Archives: 1 • 2 • 3 • 4 • 5 • 6 • 7 • 8 • 9 • 10

Several talk pages redirect here.

Bot issues

User:MediationBot automatically reported errors here, for the attention of a Committee member or the Bot Operator.
Old bot issues are not archived, but can be viewed in the page history.


Other discussion

Discussion not relating to MediationBot should go in this section. New discussions can be added to this section by simply starting a new section.

Time to shutter formal mediation?

Polling about a preliminary proposal to implement one outcome of this discussion is presently open. Please skip to this section to give your views.

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

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

I think that it's only appropriate that I comment here - I'm the one that's done the research on dispute resolution in my role as a fellow, and I came up with this statistic. So, to clarify, the 0% result came from an analysis of disputes at MedCom that were either filed or closed in May 2012. Only 7 were at MedCom, 4 were outright rejected and the other three that were open in May were closed as unsuccessful. It appears that the last successful mediation was Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Draza_Mihailovic - closed on 4 September 2011, and since that time MedCom has had 51 requests for mediation (that I can see), ten of which were accepted, and two are currently open. In May, the three open cases were open for an average of 29.6 days, and none of them were successfully resolved (as described on the case pages). The DR survey results on effectiveness according to the respondents rated RFM as poor by 29%, mediocre by 23%, average by 25%, good by 20% and excellent by 3%.
Now, all these figures don't necessarialy mean that MedCom is bad, it may just indicate that once a dispute reaches RFM it's too late. The high amount of rejected cases may indicate one of two things - either that the bar for acceptance is too high, or it's too easy to file a case at RFM when it should be looked at somewhere like DRN. I don't think MedCom should be closed, but as I have mentioned to medcom-l before, I think some change could be of benefit. I just wanted to make it clear as to how I reached my conclusions. The purpose of outlining these stats is because the trend showed that the further a content dispute went up the DR chain, the less likely it was to be successfully resolved. Regards, Steven Zhang Get involved in DR! 22:43, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It was 0% for the month of May. 99.149.231.106 (talk) 13:11, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Note - The above bullet list above was amended to include points discussed below; and also re-formatted. --Noleander (talk) 14:55, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am not opposed to the idea of some sort of binding mediation, so long binding means the agreement that the parties themselves reach, not some sort of Content Committee decision. -- Lord Roem (talk) 15:27, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My idea is that: (1) parties that refused to participate in the mediation/arbitration would not be able to block implementation of the resolution; (2) Parties that participate must do so in good faith and not hold to tendentious/uncooperative positions; and (3) The mediators would be able to endorse a resolution (that originated with the participants, not the mediators) that tendentious/uncooperative participants do not agree to. That latter point is why this hypothetical binding process should perhaps be called "arbitration" rather than "mediation". --Noleander (talk) 17:57, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting idea. In this scenario, would this "binding mediation" bind editors who weren't in the mediation, but still want to edit the article? How would the mediators ensure that every possible viewpoint is included in the process? -- Lord Roem (talk) 20:49, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the resolution would be binding on all editors, for 6 months or a year. Ensuring that all viewpoints are represented would be done through normal WP processes: (a) notification on article Talk pages; (b) notification to projects; (c) notifications to editors that worked on the article(s) in question; and perhaps: (d) RfC creation; (e) DRN notification; and (f) WP centralized discussion. Think of it this way: it is a formal Mediation/RfC/DRN, which lasts for a month and is decided by a committee of 3 uninvolved, trusted, experienced arbitrators. The resolution would only be binding if 2 of the 3 arbitrators concurred with the resolution. --Noleander (talk) 14:41, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I updated the bullet list above to include these additional thoughts (that way, all the concepts are co-located). --Noleander (talk) 15:05, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks to Steven for clarifying matters and my apologies for not letting him know I was planning to cite him here, luckily he figured it out anyway. So, what we have here is a process that has not succesfully resolved an issue in the last ten months. That's actually a bit worse that I had thought. The idea of binding mediation is not without merit, but I'm not so sure the community will go for that unless the selection process for the mediators is roughly equivalent to the selection of ArbCom members. If we give this process more teeth it is going to need more community involvement in the selection process as well. Checks and balances and all that. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:35, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think Noleander strikes the right note. Reforms and changes to the process, on a structural level, is far preferable than the arbitrary closure of an 8-year Committee. We have successes and failures, and yes maybe a great deal of failures, but I feel we need to be careful in how we approach this. We are touching a pretty big issue - how do we resolve content disputes on Wikipedia. Let's keep the perspective of the importance there in moving forward with this discussion. But it is a discussion I'm willing to have. Lord Roem (talk) 20:49, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure why you think this proposal is arbitrary. It is based on the poor performance of this process, as established by data. I don't have anything against the idea or the people who volunteer here, but it seems like a waste of resources if the success rate is so low. As I hinted before, I think this is less to do with the process itself and more to do with the fact that by the time a dispute ends up here many involved parties will be so firmly entrenched in their positions that coming to an acceptable compromise is nearly impossible no matter how skilled and patient the mediators are. However if we can find a way to make the process more effective instead of simply doing away with it that would be great. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:58, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is what I'm trying to get at. But the devil's in the details. -- Lord Roem (talk) 21:05, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

(As an aside: Xavexgoem and John Carter both responded as if someone had proposed that the ArbCom get involved - but nowhere above was ArbCom suggeseted as a solution. The prior discussions only suggested an ArbCom-like group to mediate content disputes.) --Noleander (talk) 20:45, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
+1. Pulled right from my own mind. I think this RfC would be much more useful if it was expanded in scope to the issues raised above. As I said before, this is some difficult stuff. But, this provides a perfect opportunity to have these discussions... and we must have these discussions in any debate over our DR process. -- Lord Roem (talk) 19:46, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
RfC comment from one of those, um, persons, most frequently involved in religious issues which become intractable. Dunno what that says about me, but it probably isn't good. Anyway, ArbCom is good for what it does, but I don't think it is cut out for binding discussion on content. This group as it exists may have problems, but we do need some sort of content mediation and adjudication body as well. I remember one of the processes ArbCom used in the rather messy Macedonia naming dispute case was to have a group of highly regarded editors volunteer to be, basically, a tribunal to decide the issue of the Macedonia naming question for a short time. I would prefer avoiding that final step as much as possible, but maybe having, as a final outcome, some sort of independent tribunal decide a question the parties can't agree on themselves might make mediation efforts easier. I doubt many people want the question taken entirely out of their hands, as such a tribunal does, so I think it might make them a bit more inclined to be mediatable if they were to know that, if they refuse to compromise, the matter might be taken out of their hands entirely. Just a thought, anyway, from someone who does bloody little in this area except take sides on issues like this. John Carter (talk) 20:10, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In other words, the possibility of content arbitration might encourage editors to make more of an effort in mediation? That sounds like an argument for content arbitration as an additional step between mediation and full arbitration, perhaps available only in the event of failed mediation. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 20:43, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Macedonia example is spot-on. My point is: Why should that "tribunal" process be so ad hoc? Why not formalize it? Simply enhance one of our existing processes (mediation, RfCs, DRN, etc) so a small group of trusted, uninvolved editors can resolve content disputes. --Noleander (talk) 20:47, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Noleander, I think this needs to be said: even if some members of the Mediation Committee and the DR community agree to this idea in principle (which it appears some of us actually do), I'm not sure how receptive the rest of the WP community would be to anything approaching "Content" and "Committee". I don't want to shoot this down with just that idea, but we need to keep some perspective when discussing such a major change to the process. -- Lord Roem (talk) 20:52, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I know that it would not be a popular idea. The only reason I'm spending any time on the proposal is because S. Zhang is engaging in a long-term effort to improve and streamline the dispute resolution process, so I figure it is worth throwing out some ideas. Also, I've seen too many situations where two POV groups are arguing over an article, and the article ends up in an ugly condition ... when a sensible outsider could often, usually within 15 minutes, find a decent middle ground. --Noleander (talk) 20:58, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A policy to permit some form of binding content DR has been proposed and taken before the community several times before and has failed so often that it could be regarded to be one of those perennially-suggested changes which have no chance of success. Not that some of us aren't willing to keep trying. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:59, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I hear ya. Hmm. What are your thoughts on some sort of 'pilot test' of whatever method we agree on? Some sort of community-approved test-run of binding mediation, just like the Abortion titles RfC or the 'tribunal' you discuss above? The idea with this being we write up a plan for a long-term implementation of this change, ask the community to support its application for one case before MedCom, and then see whether there's support for implementing this on a continued basis. So... your thoughts? -- Lord Roem (talk) 21:04, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that sounds like a good idea: draft a process, then pick an active content dispute from Armenian genocide, or creationism, or abortion, etc, and try it out. I'm not too familiar with S. Zhang's charter, but I believe he has a mission to look into things like that, so maybe he should be involved. Otherwise, we may have overlapping efforts underway, which would not be efficient, and would diminish the appeal of this proposal to the wider community. --Noleander (talk) 21:12, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If I might make a proposal, I personally would like to have any such proposal include also having some editors, involved or not, go through the relevant reference books, like encyclopedias, which might have content on the subject. I personally think a fair number of mediation efforts might be more easily resolved with such a conscious review of reference sources, and that doing so might also make it easier for the involved editors to resolve the matters involved themselves, short of a tribunal. John Carter (talk) 21:44, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Ah, I was not aware of the WP:BCD proposal ... it looks fine by me. It satisfies my recommendation that we not invent a new process/group, but instead evolve an existing process (RfC, DRN, Mediation) and simply formalize the notion of "closing with prejudice". Many RfCs ask for a closing admin via the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure process. When an admin closes such an RfC, it is virtually binding for several months - and yet the WP:RFC process contains no mention of this method of formally closing the RfC by an uninvolved person. One could say that WP already has a semi-binding closure process, but won't admit it. It appears that there are three ways to move forward: (1) enhance one of the mediation processes more structured & binding; (2) enhance the RfC process (similar to BCD proposal); or (3) enhance the DRN process. I take it from your (SZ) comments that you are leaning towards enhancing DRN. That's fine. I'll just keep by eyes and ears open and participate when I can. --Noleander (talk) 00:21, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
At the moment, my focus at present is on growing the pool of volunteers, and improving the success rate of DRN - currently just under 50%. I'm working on this in a few ways, creating a wizard that makes it easier to file disputes, a guide for new volunteers to assist with disputes and a set of guidelines for handling disputes. I've got other plans as well, but I want to take it one step at a time. Now that we're here though, I think that change at MedCom is needed, and definitely needs to be discussed. See my comments further below. Steven Zhang Get involved in DR! 02:01, 25 July 2012 (UTC)`[reply]
  • Meh. If I had to make an oppose or support with a gun pointed at my head, I'd say that I support the shut-down because MedCab does more and is more open to actually doing it when it needs to be done. (Full disclosure: I'm one of the current coordinators at MedCab.) But I don't see that the continued existence of MedCom does any real harm, on the other hand and, thus, meh. As for binding content dispute resolution, my proposal has been here for quite awhile. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:33, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have a few ideas that could improve MedCom, streamline dispute resolution and reduce the amount of hopeless cases that are filed here. DRN could act as the entry point for disputes, and if the dispute after five days of discussion (proper discussion, not just sporadic one without input) a resolution has not been achieved, it could be filed at MedCom and the other requirements for acceptance (except agreement by parties - but I still think unanimous agreement is unwise) could be waived. MedCom has a bunch of hardened, experienced mediators, but many disputes by the time they get here the Dalai Lama himself could not resolve - and I think it's because it takes so long for a dispute to actually get here. Let's do something about that, shall we? (Though I'd be more in favour of mediators here helping out at DRN so they /can/ get resolved at DRN :-) Steven Zhang Get involved in DR! 21:47, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the notion of mediators helping with DRN: I'll mention my suggestion (made a couple of months ago, elsewhere) that we try to consolidate the multiple lists of volunteers: (1) WP:Feedback request service, (2) WP:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Volunteering‎, (3) WP:Mediation Committee/Members, and (4) WP:Mediation_Cabal/Volunteers. I know there are some arguable differences between the roles, but there is plenty of commonality: experienced editors that are willing to pitch-in and help resolve content disputes in a unbaised manner. A side benefit of consolidating these pools of volunteers that that they would be involved with the various DR processes (RfC, mediation, DRN) and that would naturally lead to simplification/consolidation of those multiple processes. --Noleander (talk) 00:32, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

All very true, although see Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/New_antisemitism. It can happen.
MedCom is in a weird position. We're ostensibly the greatest content DR process, but we get the hardest cases and some of the worst edit warriors. We also get less room to maneuver than other DR forums because of our privileged nature. We're not afforded much latitude. Not that the privileged nature should go away, but our ability to handle conduct issues (like battleground mentalities, unwavering/tendentious stances) is practically 0 for those issues that can't be resolved through talk. I think I've mentioned this before: one idea is if the committee-as-a-whole could act as a sort of administrator for some of the worst cases. We can't go to AN/I nor exercise admin rights besides housekeeping. Xavexgoem (talk) 10:12, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I like this idea, actually, if there would be some way to define it in a usable way. I suppose, for worst-case-scenarios, maybe there could be some sort of general call to "mediators" to actively review a subject in such a way that those "mediators" who had not previously been involved in mediating the topic in question could count among those individuals determining WP:CONSENSUS relative to a given topic? John Carter (talk) 16:00, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think we can all agree that Formal Mediation as currently constructed is ineffective. Echoing Noleander, I'd argue that what is needed is binding content mediation, akin to ArbCom for behavioral issues, but directed towards content. There needs to be a mechanism to toss POV warriors from a page and to establish an NPOV version. I'm not sure that blowing up the current Mediation Committee is the way to get there. Carrite (talk) 00:09, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Blowing up MedCom" does sound a bit drastic. That is why I look at it another way: WP has only a small number of experienced, neutral volunteers who are willing to help out with content disputes. But those volunteers are spread out across MedCom, MedCab, RfCs, & DRN. Suspending one or two of those forums, although painful, could prompt all the volunteers to work together in the remaining forums (DRN & RfC?), and eventually lead to more success & happiness. --Noleander (talk) 04:47, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal (and rambling thoughts) by Keilana

Extended content

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

I like this. It links lowering the bar with the numbers needed to take those cases. --Xavexgoem (talk) 08:15, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good proposal. I support any steps that reduce the redundancy of the multiple dispute resolution processes. Not mentioned in Keilana's proposal is 3PO and RfC: Could they be streamlined also? E.g. merge 3PO into DRN? --Noleander (talk) 13:30, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I agree. Good idea, Keilana! -- Lord Roem (talk) 13:35, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think the issue of what to do about WQA and conduct DR in general is one of the things that may be discussed at Steven Zhang's office hours DR brainstorming session on IRC #wikimedia-office connect tomorrow, Saturday, 28th July 2012 at 19:00 UTC. See the announcement at Wikipedia_talk:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Brainstorming. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:31, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm opposed to merging 3O and RFC into DRN, because both of them have fundamental differences from DRN. 3O is facially similar, but has two components which DRN does not have: Third Opinions do not "count" towards consensus (explanation here) and 3O has a requirement of opinion-giver neutrality that DRN does not have. I'm also opposed to merging 3O, by the way, because I believe that it is highly successful and well-used in its current form. (The wizard that Steven is developing for DRN could, however, be expanded to be a front-end to allow a choice between 3O and DRN, and thus serve as a single entry point for DR. I'd have no objection to that.) RFC is for the purpose of bringing the attention of the entire community to a discussion so that consensus can be reached, and while it has the effect of ending disputes (and is arguably a DR process for that reason) its focus is more on the subject matter than on the dispute itself, which is what DRN and other DR processes are about. While the ultimate goal is the same, the philosophy and approach of DR and RFC are different. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:53, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For many years RfC was (and still is?) probably the most commonly used content dispute resolution process. RfC is prominently mentioned in Wikipedia:Dispute resolution as a key avenue of dispute resolution. It is only in the past half-year that DRN has become more heavily used and starting to "compete" with RfC. RfCs (unless they are posted at Centralized Discussion) do not get the "attention of the entire community", but - if the poster is lucky - get 3 or 4 uninvolved editors to provide inputs. The goals of RfC and DRN are nearly identical: to get uninvolved volunteers to provide input to resolve a content dispute. Their similarities far outweigh their differences. One situation where RfC differs from DRN is when there is no underlying dispute (e.g. the poster is asking for feedback on a proposal). As DRN expands and becomes more heavily used, we should at least acknowledge the RfC process and ask if the long-term intention is to steer content disputes to DRN and to limit RfC to non-dispute scenarios. --Noleander (talk) 15:26, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I don't think that merging 3O is a good idea right now at least. RfC is also iffy in my opinion, because it is fundamentally not a mediation-based process. I'm with Noleander, if DRN gains the traction I think it will - especially if we merge WQA into it - then yeah, content disputes should absolutely be referred to DRN (or MedCom if it's sufficiently bad), not RfC which would drag more people into the dispute. Then RfC can be used for its intended purpose, to get people to observe a situation and give their opinion. DRN and MedCom can then be used for their intended purposes, to mediate and solve disputes with the help of an outside, neutral mediator. There's a really fundamental difference between an RfC and a dispute resolution case, and I don't think conflating them is ever ever a good idea. (sorry for rambling) to address Noleander's proposal in short, I think 3O and RFC should remain separate processes, as their nature is fundamentally different from WQA/DRN and MedCab/MedCom. As TransporterMan said, "the philosophy and approach of DR and RFC are different." However, there seems to be some agreement that WQA could easily be folded into DRN and MedCab into MedCom. Is it too premature to discuss how to go about this, and asking the relevant people? Keilana|Parlez ici 16:40, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objection to deferring discussion of RfCs, because trying to do too much at once could be problematic. But it is important to clarify what RfCs are: Two editors above have implied that they are not a dispute resolution mechanism. That is not correct. RfCs are a dispute resolution mechanism, and that is clearly stated in Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. As someone who has volunteered at over 100 RfCs, I'd guess that over 90% of RfCs are rooted in a content dispute. Furthermore, RfCs also have a semi-binding closure mechanism, where the participants can ask an admin to review the RfC and determine what the consensus was, and close the RfC with a pronouncement on its outcome. I'm not married to the RfC process, and if DRN eventually grows to take-over the role of content-dispute RfCs, that is fine. But we shouldn't mis-state the purpose and nature of RfCs. --Noleander (talk) 17:01, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Noleander, I guess I was thinking more of binding community RfCs and RfCs like this one, which is really my experience with them. And yes, I think streamlining DR is totally possible if we leave 3O and RfC off the table for right now, they are functioning okay and we can discuss that once we have DRN2.0 and MedCom2.0 in place. Keilana|Parlez ici 17:07, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, that makes sense. There are probably lots of editors whose only experience with RfCs are the high-profile community-wide RfCs that ask for input on major policy proposals. Personally, I watch the RfC master list, and I see the dozens of content-dispute RfCs that crop up every month. Many of them get no input from anyone, some get only 1 or 2 editors responding. It is these content-dispute RfCs that could, eventually, be considered for merge into DRN. When that discussion happens, we need to talk about the topic-specific RfC volunteers listed at WP:FRS and see how they would get involved with DRN. --Noleander (talk) 17:31, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Proposal by TransporterMan

Extended content

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

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

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

I completely agree that the standards for acceptance of mediation should be lowered - for the sole reason that it takes only one person to block a mediation. As Xavexgoem points out, not all cases that lack unanimous acceptance are doomed - some have had success like the one linked above. I think anything lower than the current standard is better - the Mediation Committee can review a case which has some disagreement and discuss whether it should be accepted or not - with the full knowledge that there may be nowhere else for the dispute to go. DRN has picked up a lot of slack, but it can't handle all disputes - and MedCab is closed. With all due respect, MedCom needs to pick their game up - DRN is overflowing with cases and volunteers are getting burnt out. This change at formal mediation will make the transition to a new dispute resolution system easier, and I hope the committee will support the change. Regards, Steven Zhang Get involved in DR! 02:49, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I too think something along these lines might be the best way to proceed. I do not think we should totally destroy the existing structure, firstly in order to recognize the work of those who tried to get the present system to operate, and secondly, because we need something a right now, and relatively smaller changes will go faster. At least, it addresses my own primary reason for not participating in these processes: the frustration from not being able to get a decision to stick. DGG ( talk ) 21:57, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal by Xavexgoem

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

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

So let's do it. We're talking about it and I'm afraid this is going to end like most discussions here do, with nothing changing. While we all have the energy, let's hack out something we - and other DR volunteers - can get behind, and let's implement it for the benefit of the community. Keilana|Parlez ici 16:43, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
YES! Again, I agree with what Xav says. Let's do two things to both focus this discussion and get this broader input. We need to (1) propose very specific changes so this conversation gets somewhere and (2) consider adding this to the watchlist notices to gain more commentary once we develop those specific proposals. Thoughts? -- Lord Roem (talk) 16:46, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, yeah, maybe we could structure a binding RfC on the matter? Or just be bold and go for it? The proposal I have in mind is that we move all of the disputes currently at WQA to DRN, link the archives at DRN, and soft-redirect WP:WQA to DRN, with a note explaining that the two were folded together to facilitate streamlined dispute resolution. Then, since MedCab is pretty much shut down anyways, we mark it as historical and say that MedCom will accept cases formerly for MedCab, and somehow make it clear that experienced mediators are invited to apply to MedCom. We would also have to put a note at DRN (and maybe rewrite WP:DR) to explain the new process and say that anything not resolved at DRN can be taken immediately to MedCom. I'm not sure how internal MedCom policy would have to change; my thought there is that we would probably have to make the consensus from a mediation binding for a period of time, and allow people to opt out of mediation knowing that they would have no say in the final product. Does that sound workable? Keilana|Parlez ici 17:04, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Now we are getting somewhere. I like it. It's bold but not crazy and will, once completed, make DR less confusing. This discussion is already listed at CENT so I don't see any need to have another RFC. People who are intereted in DR are pretty much already here. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:15, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the above proposal by Keilana is a great plan: it really reduces the redundancy of the DR processes. I don't know if an RfC is needed ... maybe just post a prominent note on the WQA Talk page and then wait a few days to see if anyone there objects. If no objections arise: the go forward. --Noleander (talk) 17:18, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I like it, and agree with Beeblebrox that another RfC isn't needed. But- what about putting a note about this RfC on the watchlist? This is fairly important stuff. -- Lord Roem (talk) 17:24, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be ok with that. I'm going to link to this discussion over on WQA and ping some frequent volunteers over there and give them a rundown, hopefully if anyone has concerns or objections they can pop over here and discuss. Keilana|Parlez ici 17:30, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Noleander already linked at WQA, I'll go ping volunteers now. Keilana|Parlez ici 17:33, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome! I'm glad to see momentum building on this! Lord Roem (talk) 17:36, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Me too! <happy dance> So I think the way forward from here is to wait and see what the WQA volunteers say (I found 2 who contributed more than once), and if no one objects either at the talk or here, we have a few options. We could either post a watchlist notice about our intention to fold WQA into DRN/MedCab into MedCom, post a community notice in all the usual places, or just do it. Thoughts? Keilana|Parlez ici 17:40, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to see a bit more outside input before we make that change. Consensus of just the ten people interested in DR probably isn't enough on its own. Lord Roem (talk) 17:42, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, I think a watchlist notice would be the best way to reach a bunch of people. Keilana|Parlez ici 17:53, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Xavexgoem, how do you feel about allowing mediation to proceed without the agreement of all editors, then? I'm not disagreeing - I think binding content decision would have to be very carefully thought through and are probably unworkable. Keilana|Parlez ici 17:53, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We deny plenty of cases on one reject, or two on opposite sides. Imagine you have 6 editors, 3 on each side (yeah, I shouldn't talk about "sides", but that's how it often breaks down). If 5 of them agree first and then one of them rejects mediation, the others on that side probably won't follow suit. It'd be too obvious. You can work out the lopsided 3-to-2 nature of the mediation later. If the mediator manages to build a consensus, that 1 editor is going to be at a tremendous disadvantage. Currently, people can drop out knowing that it benefits them to do so, because they put a halt to any effort at compromise. Tendentious editors in particular have everything to gain.
Of course it won't always play out that way. There's actually a lot of nuance to be considered just for this issue alone. Xavexgoem (talk) 17:59, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And I agree, I think that may be where the binding nature of arbitration comes in. So what changes to MedCom do you think are necessary to make it a workable solution? Obviously we can't give up the core tenets of mediation, but I think we could find ways to make it easier for mediation to work. Keilana|Parlez ici 18:10, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Greater cooperation with ArbCom has always been a proposal, but I'm ambivalent. I don't know the details, though. I'm mostly interested in two things:
  • Consensus, not unanimity, like with MedCab. I'm not even sure this would exhaust our current reserve of mediators. MedCom is only ever 15% active or thereabouts. Escalations from DRN would need to be at a steady pace, imho.
  • A more robust way of handling personal attacks and general dickishness. I like my committee-as-a-whole idea, partly because it maintains the privileged nature (although an outside opinion would probably be best as well).
I'm only immediately concerned about the former. That's a good start. How we would go about implementing that I'm not sure. I think it could be implemented internally, if all of MedCom agrees. Xavexgoem (talk) 18:20, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is this something that should be taken to the mailing list? For what it's worth, I agree, but mostly with the second part. Keilana|Parlez ici 19:05, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say let this run a bit longer, see if we can't get some more writing on that thar wall ;-) The first bit is a perennial proposal. The second bit is new, and that should probably be discussed seriously internally, first. Xavexgoem (talk) 19:20, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Thanks for doing that, I really appreciate it! I think that from what I've seen - I'm not a regular so correct me if I'm wrong - either people are *so* tendentious about random non-content issues that they end up on an admin noticeboard, or they are arguing about content and becoming uncivil. I'm not sure that automatically forwarding non-content-related disputes to ANI is a good idea, but I have a sense that a lot of it really does come down to a dispute about content. Am I totally off-base? Do I need to go and read all the archives? (I just read what's on the page right now and I recognize that may not be representative...it was a busy morning) Keilana|Parlez ici 20:54, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think WQA does have a useful function at dealing with minor incidents which aren't related to content. A few examples: An editor is inappropriately correcting typos in another editors comments, inappropriate comments about another editor, inappropriate material on a user talkpage about another editor, inappropriate edit summaries about another editor. I think the simple cases do often get solved but anything slightly complex can descend into chaos. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:02, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused. Is this just about MedCom at this point, or about MedCom and WQA->DRN? Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:32, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's about both but mostly MedCom? Keilana|Parlez ici 20:54, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just to go on the record, I'm opposed to WQA being merged into DRN if it means we're going to get mixed content/conduct disputes. Conduct DR can (and does) cure most conduct disputes by resolving the underlying content disputes. Frankly I see WQA as a place for them to blow off steam about the conduct while real work is being done in content DR. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:56, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wow. I sleep for a few hours and look what happens? :) My personal opinion is that lowering the bar to require consensus, and not unanimity - is the minimally required change for this transition to a new dispute resolution system to work effectively. When I first created the dispute resolution noticeboard, I did it for two reasons, to act as a forum to resolve small and simple content issues and filter the rest elsewhere, and to act as a training ground - to get new blood into dispute resolution. It's definitely doing that, but disputes really only have DRN or RFC to go to at present, and a handful of disputes that were booted up to MedCom were accepted. However, volunteers at DRN are currently spread thin, and the page is currently very long - over 600k (I'll be looking into that and getting it down any way I can today, since I'm doing bugger all). Ideally, I'd like to see disputes resolved at DRN in 5 days - if the dispute is still open after 4 days, we will do an assessment of the dispute and possibly boot it up to MedCom. There's a lot of hardened mediators at MedCom, but as Xav notes, very few are active - this may be due to the lack of cases. I'm not sure about the merger of WQA into DRN - I think WQA just needs to be killed - but I think if I gather more data on its effectiveness, I can put a stronger case to the community to close it. Steven Zhang Get involved in DR! 22:22, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal by Guy Macon

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

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

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

For and against lowering the bar to formal mediation

Lowering the bar to formal mediation is one issue of this discussion. This poll aims to generate support for moving forward on this issue.

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

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

  • Against: The Chairman will have to evaluate in each case whether the number of dissenting parties is so high that a consensus cannot be formed, which adds a significant element of discretion to what was always a primarily administrative role. (For my own part, I trust our Chair to competently assess this new dimension to our requests.) AGK [•] 16:43, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The formal mediation process has many advantages over other processes, but (as has been correctly pointed out) needs updating to serve the community of 2012. Introducing an element of flexibility to our current requirement that 100% of parties agree to and participate in mediation is one step forward. I support. AGK [•] 16:43, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • For I think estimating the level of consensus for mediation can be done relatively easily. As pointed out above consensus has never required full agreement and it should be the same here. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:11, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • For. For cases that are iffy, the chair can bring it up on the mailing list. As it is, we typically have three people who accept/deny on behalf of the chair, anyway which may be a problem. I think there should also be a hard limit on how many people can reject before we automatically deny it. Like not more than 2. Also, we should probably add more clear options, so that people can reject because they don't have the time for the mediation, not because they think the mediation is a bad idea. There are other kinks to work out, too, like if someone rejects, should we allow them in the mediation? I think the answer should always be yes, but I'd be interested in others' thoughts. Xavexgoem (talk) 17:36, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, a party would practically need to be allowed in the mediation if they rejected. Otherwise, they'll certainly raise a fuss. They might still do that—and we would need a protocol for dealing with it—but we're not prohibiting them from any involvement.
    • Also, there will be plenty of cases where there's consensus but not unanimity and a case still shouldn't be accepted. That might be true for the majority of those cases. I hope that's clear to anyone considering this. I don't think this should apply for the larger cases (say >8 editors), but those are fairly uncommon.
    • It's worth pointing out that IAR always applied here, but after constantly, tediously denying, denying, denying, it may have escaped notice, or may have been seen as too risky. Xavexgoem (talk) 20:46, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • For - The members of the Mediation Committee are veteran Wikipedians who resolve the most complex of content disputes - I trust they are capable of assessing whether a request has consensus or not. Steven Zhang Get involved in DR! 18:30, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • For — I think the issue of consensus going into an acceptance decision is a false dichotomy. Editors who do not choose to participate often drop out of the dispute altogether. What needs to be assessed is whether the nonparticipating editor is going to be likely to attempt to continue to discuss the matter elsewhere or will just hide behind a log and wait to raise the dispute again if the mediation doesn't go his/her way. Most people who are actually passionate about a dispute and not merely trollish will find it difficult to watch the discussion continue in another venue without them. They may not come immediately, but they will usually either come in or disappear. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 22:15, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • For - It will need ironing out, of course, but I think it's workable. I do agree that we need a hard limit and that there are cases that should not be accepted even if that hard limit is not reached. The general idea is good. Details will happen. Keilana|Parlez ici 22:38, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • For - I think the case has been sufficiently articulated above. I would only add that if this change goes through, we'll need to seriously look at how to accommodate/include those editors who declined participation. Do we still encourage them to take part? I think yes, but we need to consider a tougher mechanism as a backup. Lord Roem (talk) 02:54, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • For. But I think if we have an environment where this sort of case is accepted, making DR binding is a necessary next step. Ironholds (talk) 10:29, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • For - Mediation should be able to proceed even if a few stubborn editors refuse to participate. Furthermore, after the mediation completes, those non-participants should not be able to block implementation of the resolution of the mediation. The latter point is critical. --Noleander (talk) 13:11, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • For; as things now stand, it is trivial to filibuster the mediation process; either by simply refusing to agree at the outset or being uncooperative during mediation itself – further wasting the mediators' and parties' time. I'm not worried about the implementation details; those are simple to hammer out once some experience has been acquired. — Coren (talk) 14:57, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • For acknowledging Noleander's point above is a very significant one and some way of addressing that issue, particularly regarding those who refuse to get involve and/or, potentially, meatpuppets or sockpuppets after the fact, is going to be required. John Carter (talk) 20:40, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Close MedCab

The Mediation Cabal should be dissolved, and its volunteers encouraged to either help out at DRN or apply for openings in MedCom. This poll aims to generate support for moving forward on this issue; it's completely informal. This proposal is kinda predicated on MedCom consenting to the changes outlined in the section above.

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

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

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

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

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

  • Mark the Mediation Cabal as historical and remove it from the Dispute Resolution process, freeing up volunteers and reducing the number of hoops people are simultaneously asked to jump through;
  • Invite the MedCab volunteers to participate in 3O, DRN or any of the other informal venues where speedy resolution can be brought;
  • Should MedCom, as a result of the bar-lowering, need more volunteers, invite them (and, indeed, all DR volunteers!) to apply to any open positions, hopefully allowing them to get high-calibre candidates.
  1. Support, obviously. Ironholds (talk) 20:05, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Full Support. Medcab has no teeth. It can't enforce anything, can't take any formal measures against people, it's the worn out grandmother trying to control the kids to no effect. Any and all mediation should be done in a formal setting, where outcomes are enforceable and issues can be dealt with by people who actually have the clout to do the work.  BarkingFish  20:13, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support. Best way to cut down on extra avenues in the process, creating a single simple path for content resolution. I see no downsides to saying what is now actually the status quo, in terms of the Mediation Cabal. -- Lord Roem (talk) 20:14, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support. I think this will do a lot to streamline DR and help resolve content disputes satisfactorily. Keilana|Parlez ici 20:25, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support MedCab is called informal when it appears to be essentially formal; if people wish to wade through the extra bureaucracy they should go the extra step and do that through the mediation committee. If they don't, they should go through DRN and company. A middleman is unnecessary and confusing and makes for a rather large ladder for disputes to reach MedCom. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:27, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support pretty much per BarkingFish (goodness, I'm pretty sure that's the first time BF and I have agreed on just about anything. Is the apocalypse nigh?). Teeth and focus are required for DR to be a useful process, it turns out. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 20:30, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support as a part of a more consistent mediation proposal only. I can and do see how such could be useful in some cases, but it also can be problematic. Overall, streamlining the procedures involved would be beneficial, and I tend to think that a clearer process of informal, semi-formal, and formal mediation, with fewer steps, is probably ultimately going to be beneficial. John Carter (talk) 20:45, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support MedCab is the best of meanings put to the most futile of ends - it ends up in a situation where it exacerbates conflict and volunteers are placed in awkward positions they are ill equipped to deal with. I fear it is a moment for Cromwell. --Narson ~ Talk • 20:49, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Mediation_Committee&oldid=504822755"