Jump to content

Wikipedia:Mediation Committee

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Danny (talk | contribs) at 20:55, 22 January 2005 (→[[User:Blankfaze|Blankfaze]]). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Please see /Committee_meeting for a suggestion of an IRC meeting of past and current mediators.

The Wikipedia mediation committee was set up by Jimbo Wales in January 2004 to assist in resolving disputes between users. It is part of the dispute resolution process on Wikipedia. If that process fails, the dispute will be resolved by the Arbitration Committee.

The role of the mediation committee is explicitly to try to resolve disputes to the mutual satisfaction of all, and not simply a first step towards banning or for vetting candidates for the Arbitration Committee to ban. Mediation is instead an honest attempt to resolve the problem. The disputants -- the users in conflict -- should understand that any concerns they have will be given a fair hearing.

The way in which this committee works is still developing as the work proceeds. It has been discussed in the past on the Wikipedia mailing lists, by emails and on the message board, which no longer exists.

See: Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, Wikipedia:Mediation and Wikipedia:Requests for mediation

What is a mediator?

Quotes:
"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: Center of the Storm, documentary film, by David Grubin, 2003.

Article:
Seven Guidelines For Handling Conflicts Constructively by Thomas Jordan

DVD:
Law Commission of Canada Community Mediation: Two Real Life Experiences by Stéphane Drolet, National Film Board of Canada, 2003

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 communication to happen.
  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 end the dispute.
  3. Mediators are not Psychologists or Social workers. Mediators will work with both parties, and therefore cannot counsel or give advice to either party involved in the dispute.
  4. Mediators are not Advocates. Mediators will not take sides or promote one person's point of view or request over those of another person. If you want a person to do that, request an advocate at the Association of Members' Advocates page.
  5. Mediators are not Security Guards. Mediators are not there to protect an article or talk pages and will not watch for improper behavior or violations of rules or guidelines. Nor will they report any incidents or document what happened in an incident report.

Who are the members of the mediation committee?

The current members are:

Active

Inactive

  • Angela - beesley AT gmail.com - unlikely to have time to mediate in December.
  • Anthere - anthere9 AT yahoo.com - unlikely to have time to mediate while on the board, but still interested of course.
  • Bcorr - Bcorr AT umich dot edu - on temporary leave until January 2005
  • Dante Alighieri dalighieri "at" digitalgrapefruit "dot" com - on sabbatical as of Nov 16, 2004

Former members

The first members were appointed by Jimbo Wales in December 2003. VancouverGuy was also appointed, and Alex756 agreed to be the committee's advisor, but both later left Wikipedia, Alex756 temporarily. Ldan is not currently active on the committee.

Who is the chair?

No one is the current chair. Former chairs were Bcorr, Danny, TUF-KAT and sannse.

The role of the chair, or co-chair, is one of coordination and facilitation, not of supervision. The role does not imply hierarchy or authority within the committee but allows a sufficient degree of formality so that we have a way of saying "Here's the outcome of the mediation".

All mediators can participate in any committee-related tasks, not only the chairs. Mediators are independent in their choice of whose case to mediate, and how to mediate.

Typical roles of the chairs include ensuring that mediators are trained and standards upheld, that mediation requests are answered and that everyone is consulted on important decisions. They may also act as spokesperson for the committee for formal announcements (for example, to announce the failure of a major mediation and the transfer of the case to arbitration).

Appointment to the chair position is rotating every few months. Any member of the committee can apply to be co-chair, and will have be approved by the other members.

Candidate for being chair

Due to recent arbitration elections and Brian's (Bcorr's) outside activities and many new candidates for mediation committee, I suggest that we hold new elections for the chair.

Jwrosenzweig has suggested he would be interested. I personally support very much him as a chair. Are there other candidates? Is there opposition to his nomination?

Please comment (let's avoid falling into full bureaucratic heaviness here). Thanks. SweetLittleFluffyThing 12:08, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

What will happen when you ask for mediation ?

It is very important to us that you are welcomed and feel that we care about your problems.

Before any mediation can start, several points will be taken into consideration

A mediator will check that other alternatives of dispute resolution have been tried;

The mediator will check your motivation as regards mediation, then will check whether the other disputant is willing to proceed in that direction as well.

These two steps are very important as no mediation can occur if both parties do not feel there might be a solution through that processus. Mediation is a voluntary process, that can succeed only if both disputants are willing to give it a try;

You will then have to agree both on a mediator to facilitate your discussions. Take your time, this choice might be essential. You need to feel you can trust that person;

All along these various steps, we recommend that you do not hesitate to ask any questions as regards the procedure itself, and in particular your rights as regards privacy issues. Anything that said during the mediation will stay private, and will not be used against you later on.
It is very important to us that you feel the process is fair. Keep in mind that you may at any time quit the process if you feel it is going wrong, change mediator or request help from more than one mediator if you think that might help. The mediators are here to help you communicate with the other parties, not to judge you. In particular, they will not have any power of final decision over an article or over banning.

Who will mediate?

The current committee feels that it would be best that the disputants have maximal input on that matter. It is strongly suggested that the disputants express their preferences.

We suggest the following options:

  • Any of the disputants may suggest one or several mediator names when requesting a mediation. If all parties agree on a mediator, and the mediator agrees as well, then he or she will take care of that mediation;
  • If none of the disputants suggested a name, a mediator may step in and propose his or her help. If all parties agree on working with the person, then he or she will take care of that mediation;
  • If no one steps in, the committee will suggest a name.
At any step during the mediation, the committee may suggest another person if thought preferable. In the last two cases, decisions over the chosen mediator will take into account history of relationships between disputants and mediator, as well as mediator availability.

How does one become a member of the committee?

  1. Read through the Wikipedia:Mediation pages and familiarise yourself with the procedure of mediation to see if it is something you would like to do.
  2. Add your name in the nominations section below.
  3. There is no strict voting procedure, but other users may comment on the nomination if they wish.
  4. A user shall become a mediator after an unspecified period of time as long as there is no opposition from the Mediation Committee, no veto from Jimbo, and general agreement from the community.

Nominations for mediator

A note on these nominations: we are currently in the process of setting up a committee meeting - one of the items on the agenda will be new members. I've also mailed all the mediators to make sure all are aware of these nominations. -- sannse (talk) 13:20, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)


Snowspinner

Let me start be acknowledging the most obvious objection here, which is that I have been more than a little aggressive at times against people I have felt are trolls, and that I at times interpret policy as giving admins more leeway than other people do. That said, I am not especially interested in mediation about admin conduct or editing habits. If asked to mediate in one of these cases I would still be willing to, but I don't think many people would suggest me as a mediator for that, and I don't think that I would jump up and volunteer in those cases.

What I would like to mediate are content disputes, particularly NPOV disputes. I've done a number of these before, most notably and successfully on Lyndon LaRouche, but also on Micronation. In each of these cases, the disputes were long-running disputes that had led to multiple page protections and arbitration requests. I feel like this was some of the best work I've done on Wikipedia, and I would like to do more work of this sort. Snowspinner 19:02, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)

Mediation committee:

Abstain. While I respect much of Snowspinner's work elsewhere, I have serious concerns about his attempts at mediation, particularly on Lyndon LaRouche. Nevertheless, I refuse to veto anyone's application (as the instructions seem to demand unanimous support from the mediation committee), so I'm abstaining. Ambi 01:07, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Although Snowspinner has been controversial in the past, I think he has the ability to be a good mediator, especially in disputes in which he is not persoanlly involved. Angela. 05:05, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)
Support. Neutralitytalk 00:54, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)
I'll support. Andre (talk) 08:46, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)

Outside opinions:

I'll make a general statement that applies to each of the current candidates (other than Habbit, who's too much of an unknown). I've observed each of them involved to varying degrees in disputes and controversies. Each has a unique approach, and while I might not want to imitate their styles exactly myself, they are not wrong and each tries sincerely to solve problems. There is no one right way to do mediation; it takes a variety of styles and chances for success depend partly on getting the right kind of mediator for the specific situation. If their services are used in the right way, all of these users can be an asset to the Mediation Committee, and I support their applications. --Michael Snow 22:31, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I have concerns about Snowspinner's style of interaction. He is, of course, a valuable contributor, but I'm not convinced that mediator is the right role for him. I'm afraid I have to oppose -- sannse (talk) 16:56, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Shane King

It seems likely one or two of the mediation commitee will end up on the arbitration commitee and hence have to stand down, so I thought I'd throw my name into the ring as a possible replacement. There also seems to be more bad blood than necessary flowing around the place right now for various reasons, and I'd like to be part of the solution. I try not to get too involved in the controversial articles, so I think I'd be in a good position to mediate disputes there. Let me know if you think I'd be suitable for this, because if not I'd like to know what I can improve on. Thanks. Shane King 22:59, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)

Mediation committee:

I'll probably support anyway, but have you got any examples of where you've been involved in conflict resolution? It'd be nice to see how you might mediate before making a final verdict. Ambi 01:07, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
No opposition. Angela. 05:05, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)
Support. Neutralitytalk 00:54, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)
Certainly. Andre (talk) 08:46, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)

Outside opinions:

See my statement above under Snowspinner's application. --Michael Snow 22:31, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Whosyourjudas

I would like to throw my hat in the MC ring. I've been a Wikipedian since August 2004, and would like to become more involved in the community. I would like to help other users to get past their disputes, as there is little that is less fun and more damaging than an escalating argument. While I generally avoid very controversial articles, I worked toward NPOV on God to success. I've also gone through other minor disputes, and would now like to help others get through theirs. I hope I am seen as acceptable (or better); if not, please let me know what I can improve on. Thank you. --Whosyourjudas (talk) 19:53, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Mediation committee:

I don't see any major concerns, but have you got any examples of where you've been involved in conflict resolution? It'd be nice to see how you might mediate before making a final verdict. Good enough explanation for me. Ambi 01:07, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I have been in conflicts both as an involved party and as an unofficial mediator. At Gross domestic product, I narrowly avoided a growing revert war with a friendly anon. We worked out our differences in talk and ended up with a more accurate article, not a dispute. I stepped up as mediator at Talk:Translation in response to a VP request. Between that page and assorted usertalks, I helped people to stay cool and work out their differences. I think it went well, with everyone ending up happy. I also warn users about approaching 3RR violations to prevent disputes. But I would like to be able to help out when they do arise. Further I am an adamant supporter of NPOV and work everywhere to diplomatically get articles to proper NPOV. --[[User:Whosyourjudas|Whosyourjudas\talk]] 22:39, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
No opposition. Angela. 05:05, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)
Support. Neutralitytalk 00:54, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)
Support. Andre (talk) 08:46, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)

Outside opinions:

See my statement above under Snowspinner's application. --Michael Snow 22:31, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
One of the worst users on the Wikipedia. Name highly offensive. Oppose, consider banning. --Librarian Brent 23:02, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Blankfaze

I've been meaning to get more involved in community issues anyhow (hence why I was running for ArbCom). Well, four MC members were just elected to the Arbitration Committee, so I imagine the MC will probably need a few people with time on their hands and who are willing, which I am. If any of you don't know me, I've been here for eight months, admin for five, see my user page or contributions for more information. I would hope to be as superb a mediator as sannse and ambi have, butthat is truly a lofty goal. Anyhow, I'm willing to take a shot at it. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 19:00, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Mediation committee:

I'll probably support anyway, but have you got any examples of where you've been involved in conflict resolution? It'd be nice to see how you might mediate before making a final verdict. Good enough explanation for me, so support. Ambi 01:07, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Admittedly I don't have a whole lot of experience mediating disputes, probably because I try not to get involved in too many of them. However, I do believe myself to be steadfastly able to be neutral and consider all POVs and not let personal opinions influence my editing (for example, I've reverted leftist-stipulation additions to George W. Bush and many other articles even though I oftentimes agreed with them). I think any of the Wikipedians who know me very well would vouch for my neutrality and fairmindedness. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 09:04, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
For the curious, I'd just like to add that I also have an intimate and thorough knowledge of Wikipedia policy, including the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution process. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 09:16, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Support. Angela. 05:05, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)
Support -- sannse (talk) 23:41, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Support. Neutralitytalk 00:54, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)
Support. Andre (talk) 08:46, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)
Support. SweetLittleFluffyThing 11:25, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Oppose. Danny 20:55, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Outside opinions:

See my statement above under Snowspinner's application. --Michael Snow 22:31, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Support. --MPerel 02:09, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC) oops! moved my vote to outside opinions. I originally opposed in the Arbcom Elections, but I've recently become more impressed and think MedCom would be a good opportunity to see what BlankFaze can do. He's definitely a very involved editor and admin and committed to Wikipedia. no offense. --MPerel 20:54, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)

fvw

With the ArbCom election, the mediation committee has lost a number of good people, and I do feel it's important for there to be sufficient choice of mediators for editors seeking mediation. Therefor I'm nominating myself, and should there not be significant objection, I hope to contribute to this sometimes overlooked but important part of wikipedia dispute resolution. To preempt Ambi's question, no I haven't been involved in any major conflict resolution on wikipedia, only the odd "Don't you think you should reconsider that" or "could you have a look at this or that guideline". Though I understand this makes it difficult to predict my performance (and I'll take no offence at any objections), I do think I am capable of helping opposing parties come to a compromise, and if nothing else at least my ability to remain civil and communicative should be apparant from my edit history. So far I've been most active in RC-patrol and cleanup, and I'd like to work on this side of wikipedia too. I'm a reasonably new editor, but I am familiar with the way DispRes works and the community of wikipedia. &#0xfeff; --fvw* 21:41, 2004 Dec 20 (UTC)

Mediation committee:

Unsure, but not necessarily opposing, since Fvw is still fairly new. Angela. 15:01, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)
Ditto Angela. Neutralitytalk 00:54, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)
Too new, I think. Not opposing though Andre (talk) 08:46, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)
Ditto others. Ambi 01:37, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Oppose. Too new and inexperienced. Danny 15:16, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Outside opinions:

See my statement above under Snowspinner's application. --Michael Snow 22:31, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • I believe Fvw recently had a RFA opposed on his newness which was possibly an okay decision (Nevermind he is an admin!). He does seem to have commitment to Wikipedia and wants to help in some way. I see no reason why he wouldn't do a good job here as a mediator. I suggest to the Committee that you support him. You'll probably see he'll do a good job and he'll most certainly not do a bad job. So, I urge you to support his nomination.

Some external mediation organizations

See also
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Mediation_Committee&oldid=9565314"