Wikipedia:Mediation Committee/Policy: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia

Line 1:

{{Redirect|WP:MP|the Main Page|Wikipedia:Main Page|the page on merge proposals|Wikipedia:Proposed mergers}}

{{Policy|WP:MC/P|WP:MP|subcategory=procedural|text=Changes require the support of the Mediation Committee's members, who have [[/Ratification|ratified]] this policy.}}

{{Historical|type=policy||comment='''<br>The Mediation Committee has been disbanded as a result of [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)&diff=868523636&oldid=868509738 this discussion].<br>Other [[Wikipedia:Dispute resolution requests|dispute resolution]] processes should be used for content issues.'''|WP:MC/P}}

{{Medcom menu}}

A core principle of Wikipedia is to make decisions by [[consensus decision-making|consensus]]. Wikipedia's [[WP:DR|dispute mediation process]] includes a formal [[mediation]] system to help implement that principle. This policy regulates this formal mediation system.

Formal mediation resolvesaddresses a dispute over article content by providing a dedicated page (for consensus-making discussion) and a third party (to lead this discussion). This discussion establishes a consensus about the disputed content. This third party, the mediator, co-ordinates the discussion by exploring arguments and suggesting aalternatives that participants may agree compromisewith. In formal mediation, the mediator must be an appointed member of the [[Wikipedia:Mediation Committee|Mediation Committee]]. Formal mediation may be requested at [[Wikipedia:Requests for mediation]].

This policy outlines the operations of the Mediation Committee (which oversees and provides formal mediation) and its members, the process for requesting mediation, and the common aspects and required elements of the mediation process (although each mediator has their own approach to mediating). This policy is controlled by the Mediation Committee.

Line 24 ⟶ 26:

'''Committee''' or '''MedCom''' is the Mediation Committee. Where this policy refers to the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee|Arbitration Committee]], "Arbitration Committee" or "ArbCom" is used.

'''Majority''', as in internal decision-making, is when the number of votes in support of a resolution is greater than 50% of the total number of mediators who have voted in that decision. All decisions have a [[wikt:quorum|quorum]] equal to half of the total number of [[Wikipedia:Mediation Committee#Members|active mediators]]. The procedures for the majority and quorum of an expulsion vote are different.

== Principles ==

Line 31 ⟶ 33:

In addition to [[Wikipedia:Five pillars|Wikipedia's five pillars]] and other editorial policies, the following principles apply to formal mediation:

'''Mediated agreements are not binding.''' Any agreement achieved through mediation is not permanently binding. If consensus is achieved in a mediation case, the parties are expected by the community to honour the result. However, the consensus does not apply to articles outside the scope of the mediation, nor doesis it lastnecessarily permanentlypermanent. [[Wikipedia:Consensus#Consensus can change|Consensus can change]].

'''Mediation is voluntary.''' Mediation aims to settle a question about Wikipedia content through guided discussion. Its result therefore requires the [[Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]] of the participants in a dispute. Forced participation is incompatible with the nature of the mediation process, so we cannot compel a party to participate in mediation. However, theeditors refusal by anwho editorrefuse to take part in mediation ''in conjunctionand'' withrefuse ato refusal toproperly discuss one'stheir position vis-à-vison content may constitutebe edit warring or disruptivedisruptively editing, to which the response is usually [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocking]] by an administrator or sanctioning by the community.

'''Mediation buildsis compromisea andmeans of obtainsseeking consensus.''' Mediators guide a dispute, using discussion, to a sensible compromiseconclusion. The aim of mediation is to achieveproduce a solution to which all the disputants consent. Mediators do not adjudicate disputes.

'''Mediation requires compromisecollaboration by all partiessides.''' Mediation has the same difficulties as regular editorial debate and discussion, andin thereforethat it cannot be successful without a shared receptiveness to compromisefinding common interests among the disputants.

'''Mediation is not a stepping stone to arbitration.''' Mediation proceedings are privileged and cannot be used as evidence in an arbitration case or community user-conduct proceedings. IfMediation mediationfails iswhen used as a stepping-stone to arbitration and to "victory" over the other disputants is the end-goal, then mediation will be unsuccessful.

'''Mediation will notnever yield an illegitimate result.''' While the purpose of mediation is compromiseto discern common interests, the committee will not allow compromiseproposals withthat orresult betweenin illegitimate opinionspositions on content. Views may be illegitimate inbecause termsthey ofcontravene site policy, obvious fact, or common sense. If a case cannot proceed without allowing illegitimate positions to influence the proceedings, then the mediator or the Mediation Committee will summarily close the case and may refer the parties with illegitimate positions to an appropriate user conduct venue.

'''Mediators are not security guards.''' All parties must abide by Wikipedia's standards of due professionalismconduct. Whilst mediators may use soft tactics (like removing or redacting argumentative or insulting remarks) to maintain focus induring proceedings, they will not consistently enforce decorum or civility. If a mediator finds that they repeatedly havehas to enforce decorum, the casecommittee canor bemediator may summarily closedclose the case and refer the matter referred to an administrator, the community, or the Arbitration Committee.

== Mediation ==

Line 53 ⟶ 55:

*The issue or issues in dispute will be established;

*The positions with regards to each issue will be established;

*The arguments for and against each position will be set out, where possible discerning the common interests of participants;

*Sensible compromisesalternatives between each arguments will be proposed (including sandboxing or producing multiple "drafts" of the article(s) or section(s) which are disputed);

*Arguments for and against each compromisealternative will be set out; and

*A final compromiseagreed-on alternative will be selected.

If there is support for this final compromisealternative, that compromiseagreement is implemented. If no compromiseagreement can be formed in regards to any issue, then "[[Wikipedia:Consensus#No consensus|no consensus]]" is the result and the mediation is unsuccessful. If there are several issues and aan compromiseagreement is reached in respect of some but not all issues, the mediation is "partly successful". If a compromiseagreement is reached in respect of every issue, the mediation is "successful".

Any compromiseagreement formed through mediation will be presumed to have a current consensus and can therefore be implemented by any editor.

While mediation is not binding, mediators are authorised to ask each party to explicitly indicate their consent to the result of the case. Parties should not expect aan compromiseagreement that accords precisely with their own preferences: consensus ''requires'' compromise,consideration andof all viewpoints but not necessarily unanimity; consensus is the objective of mediation.

While mediators do not enforce conduct, they may establish standards of conduct at the beginning of proceedings, and they may ask that the parties read (or explicitly sign their agreement to) these standards.

Line 74 ⟶ 76:

#The dispute relates to the content of a Wikipedia article or other content page;

#The dispute is not exclusively about the behaviour of a Wikipedia editor;

#The parties must have first attemptedengaged ain less-formalextensive discussion of the matter in dispute resolutionat method,the sucharticle astalk [[WP:3O|thirdpage opinion]],and [[WP:RFC|requestdiscussion foronly comment]]through oredit [[WP:DRN|disputesummaries will resolutionnot noticeboard]]suffice;

#A majority of the parties to the dispute consent to mediation;

#Among the parties who have consented to mediation, every major viewpoint concerning the dispute is represented;

#No legal or [[Wikipedia:Office actions|office action]] directives prohibit the dispute; and

#No related dispute resolution proceedings are openactive in other Wikipedia forums.

#Although disputes that satisfy the first eight prerequisites may be mediated by the Committee, the Committee has the discretion to refuse or refer back to other dispute resolution venues (e.g. [[WP:DRN|dispute resolution noticeboard]], [[WP:3O|third opinion]], [[WP:RFC|request for comment]], or additional talk page discussion) a dispute which would benefit from additional work at lower levels of the dispute resolution process. Refusals or referrals of this nature may be made if so decided by the Committee chairperson or by two other active members of the Committee, and may be overruled by a majority vote of the active mediators.

Common reasons for rejection of mediation requests are listed [[WP:RFM/COMMON|in the guide to mediation]].

Line 93 ⟶ 96:

Mediation will primarily take place on the "Wikipedia talk:" page of the mediation case information page and its subpages, and not elsewhere on the project. Limited discussion about the case may take place outside of Wikipedia at the mediator's sole discretion, but mediation proceedings must only take place on the case talk pages. Communications outside of Wikipedia is subject to all rules governing off-wiki communication, [[Wikipedia:Emailing users#Privacy|including emails]].

Parties may decline to participate in off-wiki 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. Parties who decline off-wiki mediation need not give any reason and will continue to be able to play a full and equal part in the mediation process through the normal Wikipedia editing process. Declining off-wiki mediation will not be considered disruptive to the mediation process.

=== Mediation communications are privileged ===

Line 99 ⟶ 104:

{{Shortcut|WP:MC/P#PRIV}}

To encourage participants to speak candidly, Wikipedia has adopted the policy that statements made during mediation cannot be used against the participants in subsequent dispute resolution proceedings. This protection is called "privilege" or "the privileged nature of mediation". All communications during mediation are privileged. The Mediation Committee will protect all interactions made as part of the mediation proceedings, and will prevent such communication being used as evidence in other dispute resolution proceedings, including (but not limited to) arbitration and [[WP:RFC/U|requests for comment on user conduct]].

For disputes that the Committee directly defersrefers to arbitration, thethis committee's involvement will end once the casearbitration request concerning the dispute is accepted, and will not extend beyond the submission of a balanced summary of the dispute submitted at the "requests for arbitration" stage. No evidence will be submitted by thethis Committee or its members. The [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy#Admissibility of evidence|Arbitration policy]] prohibits the content of mediation proceedings from being used as arbitration evidence without this committee's consent.

Protecting the integrity of mediation does not extend to protecting users who deliberately subvert the mediation process. Therefore, if a party engages in disruptive or bad-faith conduct during mediation, and that conduct later becomes the subject of Wikipedia disciplinary proceedings, the Mediation Committee will decline to protect the privileged nature of thethat party's communications.

== Mediation Committee ==

Line 146 ⟶ 151:

The mailing list exists for co-ordination, mutual support among mediators, and to provide a venue for mediators to obtain feedback and second opinions on their cases. Limited discussion about other issues, like open nominations, may take place on the mailing list (though ultimately decisions regarding nominations must go onto the nomination page).

As a group of experienced users, the mediators may also use the mailing list to discuss Wikimedia issues that relate to dispute resolution, because ultimately these may affect the formal mediation process.

E-mails between members of the Committee sent through the mailing list are confidential, and no non-member is authorised to access these e-mails. However, current members must remember that future appointees to the Committee are always given full access to the mailing list (and therefore to its archives, which are a full and complete record of mailing list threads and which cannot be deleted).

=== Membership and appointment ===

The Mediation Committee was originally appointed by Jimmy Wales and is self-perpetuating.

Users may only be admitted to the committee through submission of a "nomination" or "candidacy" and with the consent of a majority (with [[Wikipedia:Mediation Committee/Nominations/Two oppose rule|no more than one oppose vote]]) of the mediators who choose to opine on their candidacy. Mediation requires a unique and nuanced set of skills. Therefore, only members of the committee may vote in nominations.

The mediators welcome community statements or comments and will take them into account, but will not be bound by them.