Wikipedia:Mediation Committee/Policy/Old policy

This page documents a procedural policy on the English Wikipedia. Major changes require the prior agreement of the Mediation Committee.

"WP:M" redirects here. For other uses, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine.

This page deals with formal mediation provided by the Mediation Committee.

The basic philosophy of Wikipedia is to reach a consensus in decision-making; this allows for the creation and maintenance of a stable knowledge base.

In line with these principles, a system of mediation has been set up. This system is meant to resolve disputes, and resolve issues of users who have repeatedly violated Wikipedia's policies, most specifically Wikipedia's policies of etiquette towards other users as stated at Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines and Wikipedia:Wikiquette.

Requests for formal mediation are filed at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation.

What is mediation?

Mediation is a process in which a neutral third party, the mediator, assists two or more parties in order to help them achieve an agreement on a matter of common interest.

The common aspects of mediation are:

• a difference of positions between the respective parties
• a genuine desire on the part of the parties to find a positive solution to the dispute and to accept a discussion about respective interests and objectives
• the intention of achieving a positive result through the help of an independent, neutral third-party not connected with any of the involved parties
• the intention of achieving a steady result, preferably a long-lasting agreement between the parties

The ordinary form of a mediated agreement is the consensus of the parties on a proposal that has been developed with the help of the mediator. The mediator may or may not set out a formal agreement for the parties to accept; some mediators prefer to help guide the parties towards developing their own agreement. Agreement to mediate does not obligate the parties to accept any proposed agreements.

Mediation does not have a set structure or methods, although some common elements exist:

• Clarification of the respective interests and objectives
• Conversion of respective subjective evaluations into more objective values
• Representation to the parties of a collection of possible solutions
• Translation of the result of discussions into a draft of agreement (perhaps in written form)
• Formalisation of the agreement.

Each mediator is granted the freedom to develop his or her own method, and to apply it as necessary for the specific case at hand. The method used by any given mediator may differ from the general guidelines set out here. This is not a formal policy, and mediators are not obligated to utilize methodologies set out herein.

The role of a Wikipedia mediator is far less controversial than the role of a Wikipedia arbitrator; mediators are facilitators of voluntary discussion, while arbitrators hear evidence and issue binding rulings, including the ability to issue sanctions against users.

Mediation is at its best when it is simultaneously protecting content and community. Mediation aims at working with the users in conflict to incorporate the information or viewpoints of both, while ensuring that the result conforms to all applicable Wikipedia policies. At the same time, it endeavors to produce sufficient peace between the parties to allow amicable discussion and prevent the need for future dispute resolution.

• Mediation is intended to achieve a way for people to keep working collaboratively and build better articles, while growing from the mutual exchange.
• Mediation doesn't need to produce mutual amity between the disputants, though increased tolerance and respect is an important aim of any mediation.
• Mediation is not a forum for policy decisions. If the locus of the dispute is not covered by current policy, the matter must be referred to the Wikipedia community as a whole. Under no circumstances will mediation between a small number of parties be substituted for a valid community-wide exercise in consensus building.

Wikipedia mediators are permitted and encouraged to use their own best judgement to recommend a solution to the disputants, one that is in the best interests of the project. Where the position of one disputant is clearly unreasonable, fringe, or based on a strong point of view, the mediator is not required to subvert the integrity of the encyclopedia in order to reach a resolution.

What mediators are not

1. Mediators are not emissaries. It is not the job of mediators to pass messages between individuals who are not able to communicate. Mediators work to establish the trust and common ground to allow direct communication.
2. Mediators are not private investigators. Mediators do not "work for you", nor will they work to build a case against someone or research the facts in an article. Mediators will examine the facts surrounding the dispute in an attempt to understand what each party is looking for and to determine what may help to resolve the dispute amicably. The communications that take place during mediation are not appropriate ammunition for an arbitration case, and mediation should not be used as a case building exercise for arbitration. Abuse of mediation communication in an arbitration case or any other dispute resolution proceeding will be prevented (see the privileged nature of mediation).
3. Mediators are not psychologists or social workers. Mediators work with all parties as a neutral third party; they cannot and will not counsel or give advice to either party involved in the dispute.
4. Mediators are not advocates. Mediators will not take sides in the dispute or promote one person's point of view or request over those of another person.
5. Mediators are not security guards. Mediators do not protect articles or talk pages from edits by parties, and will not watch for improper behavior or violations of rules and guidelines. Administrative functions like page protection may be utilized in the furtherance of mediation, but only where supported by Wikipedia policy. Mediators will not report any incidents, and will not serve as witnesses or complainants in incident reports. As always, the contents of formal mediation are privileged.

People involved in Wikipedia mediation

Mediators

Mediators are duly nominated and promoted members of the Mediation Committee. They are experienced and trusted Wikipedians selected by the current members of the Committee. Interested parties should read the information provided on the Mediation Committee's page.

A mediator is first and foremost a facilitator. The responsibility of a mediator is to facilitate communication between users during disputes. Anyone can mediate informally between parties, but formal mediation is only provided by the Mediation Committee.

Mediators may not always follow the traditional model of mediation. In all cases they strive to achieve conciliation through negotiation. Mediators listen to both sides, they attempt to help each party recognize and value the other party's position. Mediators attempt to resolve differences in a mutually agreeable manner, and try to ensure meaningful discussions can take place.

 For details on each member and for mediators emeriti, see here.

1. Mdann52 (talk · contribs · email)
2. Sunray (talk · contribs · email)
3. The Wordsmith (talk · contribs · email)
4. TransporterMan (talk · contribs · email)

   ↳ Chairperson: Sept 2014 – current.

5. WGFinley (talk · contribs · email)

   ↳ Not actively mediating.

6. Guanaco (talk · contribs · email)

Active but temporarily away

1. Keilana (talk · contribs · email)

Disputants

• Mediation can occur among several parties, though it most commonly takes place between two sides composed of single disputants or cohesive groups with a common viewpoint. As the number of distinct parties with distinct viewpoints increases, the difficulty of reaching an agreement suitable to all parties also increases, and the likelihood of a successful resolution decreases exponentially. It is sometimes helpful if the dispute can be reframed as a number of independent and separately mediated disputes between two parties, though this is by no means required.

• Any disputant may refuse or withdraw from the mediation process at their will. No party is required to participate in mediation, though refusal to do so may result in the dispute escalating to binding resolution through the Arbitration Committee.

• In common cause a group of disputant users can, in consensus, choose to dispute through mediation with a single disputant or another disputant group.
  • Disputant groups may choose a representative from amongst them to serve as a spokesperson. It is sometimes helpful to have a single voice that represents the group; however, it is possible to have a mediation where all disputants take part.

• The mediator is empowered, if he or she determines that having multiple disputants on each side involved has had a negative effect on reaching an outcome, to require each side to select a spokesperson and limit further discussion from other parties. Should the parties fail or refuse to do so, or if non-spokespeople on either side continue to disrupt the mediation, the mediator may close the matter.
  • If a representative has been chosen, then the representative should be the only one who presents the views of the collective people he/she represents. If the mediator has required selection of a spokesperson, then the other parties must speak through the spokesperson. Failure to do so may result in the closure of the mediation.
  • In exceptional circumstances the representative may be switched mid-process.

Procedure for mediation

See also: Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Guide

Parties should request mediation from the Wikipedia:Mediation Committee by filing a request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation. Guides and sample requests are provided to assist parties in correctly filing requests.

What will happen when you ask for mediation?

When a mediation request is filed at Requests for Mediation, the initiating party fills out a pre-defined format, listing the parties, the articles involved, the previous steps in dispute resolution, and a concise set of issues to be mediated, stated as neutral bullet points. The Committee is very strict about the form of requests, in order to prevent the massive debates and flame wars that have taken place in the past. Requests that fail or refuse to comply with the required format will be rejected; the Committee expects compliance with Committee policy and procedure as a minimum demonstration of the good faith necessary for mediation.

Once the request has been filed, the initiator is responsible for notifying the other parties of the request. More instructions on doing so are provided on the RfM page. Parties have seven days from the filing of the request for all parties to indicate their agreement to the mediation. If any party fails to agree, the mediation will be rejected, as mediation cannot take place without the agreement of all parties.

Shortly after all parties have indicated their acceptance of the mediation, a mediator (generally the Chair of the Committee) will check the accuracy of the request. If all parties have been notified, the required processes followed, and the procedure carried out, the request will be "accepted" and listed as an unassigned case. This is not to be confused with an agreement from a mediator to mediate the case; that comes at the mediator's discretion.

As indicated above, after the initial acceptance, a mediator will indicate that they are willing to mediate the request. At that time, the parties will be contacted and given the opportunity to make their case in full. It is at this point in the process that the parties set out their sides in full detail.

Parties should not hesitate to ask questions regarding the procedure itself. It is very important that parties view the mediation process as fair. Parties should remember that they may withdraw from mediation at any time. If a party believes the process is not proceeding correctly, they may request help from the mediator.

Who will mediate?

Mediators are not assigned cases by the Committee; instead, they have free range to choose which cases they are interested in mediating. Mediators review cases and indicate which ones they are interested in mediating; it is rare for a mediator to indicate interest in a case and be rejected by the parties.

There has been discussion within the Committee of various methods for valid rejection of a mediator. At this time, there is no established procedure for declining a mediator's offer to mediate. It is expected that should such a situation arise, parties will state a strong reason for declining a particular mediator, as all mediators are considered highly trusted and capable individuals. Parties concerned about a public statement may make their objections known privately to the Chair of the Committee, via email. Declining a mediator's offer to mediate is a serious matter, and should be reserved for extreme circumstances; if it is determined that a party's rejection of the mediator is a disruption technique or attempt to derail dispute resolution, the mediation may be referred to the Arbitration Committee for binding resolution. Parties should not be concerned about making known good-faith concerns and objections to the involved mediator, but are strongly cautioned against any attempt to abuse the system.

At any step during the mediation, the Committee may suggest a change in mediator. This may be due to mediator availability, the number of cases handled by each mediator, or other factors.

When should a mediation be held confidentially?

Although most mediations happen on public Wikipedia pages, mediation can be held in private—by email, over IRC, or on the Committee's private wiki. Why might parties request private mediation?

• As the channel for communication, the mediator may rephrase harsh comments in a manner less likely to produce anger and emphasize apologies, points of agreement, and kind and forgiving comments. While the mediator will not alter the substance of a party's comments, they are permitted to refactor in a manner that prevents escalation of the dispute.

• Mediation, when held publicly, may be impaired by the involvement of well-meaning-but-uninformed users with little understanding of the dispute; this can have the effect of escalating the problem rather than resolving it. In particular, intervention of non-parties on the side of one of the disputants causes escalation. The mediator is empowered to exclude any non-party from participation in any mediation case at their discretion. They may not exclude parties to the dispute, with the exception of requiring a spokesperson for a group party.

• When two users are in conflict, they often say things that they strongly regret at a later point in time. As contributions to the wiki always remain in page histories, it remains an indefinite record for later reference, forever in other editors' minds. Even if the dispute ends amicably, it remains available for malicious use by others.

• Parties are often justifiably concerned that information revealed in mediation may later be used outside of the mediation process to their disadvantage. Confidentiality offers an extra layer of protection that the usual mediation privilege afforded by formal mediation on Wikipedia.

• Parties may decline to participate in confidential mediation even if they have agreed to on-wiki mediation. No party is compelled to participate in off-wiki discussions, just as no party is compelled to participate in mediation at all.

The privileged nature of mediation

It is very important for all parties to recognize and respect that all communications during mediation are privileged. In the interests of facilitating open communication between parties, the Mediation Committee pledges to protect any and all communications made during mediation, and in particular will attempt to prevent such communications being used as evidence in other dispute resolution or similar discussions, including (but not limited to) arbitration and user conduct requests for comment.

When made aware of any use of mediation-based communications as evidence in such proceedings, the Mediation Committee will make every attempt to prevent such use. If communications from a mediation case are introduced as evidence in a request for arbitration, the Mediation Committee will make known its strongest possible objection to the use of such materials, and will appeal the matter to Jimmy Wales where necessary. The Mediation Committee believes that the Arbitration Committee shares a commitment to protecting the privileged nature of mediation, as noted in their arbitration policy. The Committee is confident that the Arbitration Committee would act quickly and decisively to prevent such use.

The Mediation Committee reserves the right to decline to become involved in a situation where a party's bad faith conduct in mediation is utilized in disciplinary proceedings. Protecting the integrity of mediation does not extend to protecting users who deliberately disrupt and subvert official dispute resolution, and the Mediation Committee will not allow its policies to be abused to protect bad-faith actions.

See also

• Wikipedia:Mediation Committee
• Wikipedia:Requests for mediation
• Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Guide
• Wikipedia:Civility
• Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee
• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration

External links

Quotations

• "To be a good mediator you must be a good listener."
• "You have to listen to not only what is being said, but what is not said -- which is often more important than what they say." — Kofi Annan

External links

• Seven Guidelines For Handling Conflicts Constructively by Thomas Jordan