Wikipedia:Mediation Committee

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"WP:MC" redirects here. You may also be looking for Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal or Wikipedia:Move to the Commons.
For an introduction to mediation, see Wikipedia:Mediation.
Dispute resolution
Negotiation
Third opinion
Editor assistance
Requests for comment
Mediation Cabal
Mediation
Mediation Committee
Requests for mediation
Arbitration
Arbitration Committee
Requests for arbitration
See also
Full template
Shortcuts:
WP:MC
WP:MEDCOM

The Wikipedia Mediation Committee was set up, along with the Arbitration Committee, in January 2004 by Jimmy Wales to assist in resolving disputes between users. It is part of the formal dispute resolution process on Wikipedia. Requests for a mediator to assist in a dispute are made at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation.

The role of the Mediation Committee is explicitly to try to resolve disputes, especially those involving content, to the mutual satisfaction of all. Mediation must be an honest attempt on the part of all parties to resolve disputes; parties to mediations should understand that they will be given the opportunity to express any concerns they have, but mediation is not a court hearing, and mediators do not issue binding decisions. The decision to mediate, and to abide by the result of mediation, is voluntary.

If you wish to contact the Mediation Committee via email, please do so by following this link while logged into your account. All emails will be then automatically forwarded to the Committee's internal mailing list for viewing and discussion.

Contents

[edit] Members

A sortable table listing all Committee Members is available at Wikipedia:Mediation Committee/Members.

[edit] Active Mediators

As of June 10, 2008.

Active Mediators Away

(on a known and/or temporary absence)
Shortcut:
WP:MC/A

[edit] Mediators Emeriti

Shortcut:
WP:MC/E

These members are the emeriti of the Mediation Committee; in practical terms, this means they are inactive on Committee activities, including mediations. Many are inactive having gone on to other duties, including the Arbitration Committee or the Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation.

Mediators emeriti are welcome to re-list themselves as active at any time, and resume mediation of cases and other duties. Emeriti are often active on the Committee mailing list, and in other "behind-the-scenes" operations of the Mediation Committee, such as commenting on current nominations; they may choose to do this while inactive, as they wish.

Active Committee members who are taking a temporary leave of absence, including wikibreaks, may choose to list themselves as away instead of emeritus. Information on all Committee members, and their general activities, is available here.

[edit] Chair

The current Chair of the Mediation Committee is WJBscribe.

The role of the Chair is one of coordination, facilitation, and administration, rather than oversight or supervision. The role does not involve a hierarchy or authority within the Committee; instead, it provides a recognized spokesperson for the Committee's decisions and a designated individual to maintain Committee processes. Election of the Chair is held as needed on the Committee's internal mailing list.

The Chair will often initiate discussion on the mailing list in the event of an important or controversial decision, rather than immediately acting as the representative of the Committee as he or she does normally. Furthermore, cases are not assigned to mediators by the Chair; rather, mediators are independent in their choice of which cases they mediate, and how they conduct their mediations.

The typical tasks of the Chair, also carried out by other members of the Committee when the Chair is unavailable, include those listed here. Former Chairs have been: Daniel, ^demon, Essjay, Redwolf24, MacGyverMagic, Jwrosenzweig, Danny, Bcorr, Sannse and TUF-KAT.

[edit] MediationBot

Further information: User:MediationBot1

MediationBot1 (talk • contribs • tasks • flag log • actions log • block log • other logs • count) is an automated Wikipedia bot used by the Mediation Committee to perform case management and other tasks as needed. As an official project of the Mediation Committee, MediationBot is only used for official Mediation Committee business.

The original bot, put online in July 2006, was the product of efforts by Tangotango, Misza13 and Pgk. In November 2007, ST47 kindly offered to rewrite the bot as the old bot was becoming slightly unreliable, and the bot was put online in the same month. The Mediation Committee expresses sincere thanks to all these users for their efforts in developing and producing the bot.

If you have any comments, concerns or suggestions about this bot, please feel free to leave a message at Wikipedia talk:Mediation Committee. If you are forced to block this bot due to it malfunctioning, please also leave a note on the Committee's talk page so the problem can be fixed and the bot unblocked; you may also wish to contact the mailing list.

[edit] Membership and selection procedure

Members are selected by consensus of the Mediation Committee as a whole; nominations generally last between two weeks and one month, and are open to comment from both Committee members and non-Committee members. Emeritus members of the Mediation Committee retain the option to participate in nomination discussions as regular (active) Committee members. Non-Committee members are invited to comment and provide advice to the Committee about candidates and their suitability.

There is not a strict minimum amount of support necessary for a nomination to be promoted. However, the Committee does enforce a "two oppose rule"; the Committee has determined that any nomination opposed by two or more members of the Committee cannot be promoted. Final approval lies with Jimmy Wales, though he rarely comments on nominations. Promoted candidates are requested to join the Committee's internal mailing list.

There are no set standards for Committee members, though certain trends have developed over time. Appointment to the Mediation Committee is an appointment to an official Wikipedia committee, and requires a certain level of community trust. Involvement in the Wikipedia community is also a key factor, as is experience in Wikipedia dispute resolution; nominees should be able to demonstrate a strong history of resolving disputes on Wikipedia and interacting positively with the community. Self-nominations from prospective mediators are always welcome and current Committee members are often on the lookout for strong candidates to nominate. Interested candidates should read and follow the procedure outlined at Wikipedia:Mediation Committee/Nominations/Procedure to submit their nomination.

[edit] Current nominations

Old nominations are archived at Wikipedia:Mediation Committee/Nominations.

[edit] Sunray

Nominated:
03:29, May 10, 2008 (UTC)
view edit watch

Sunray (talk · contribs)

I am a long-time editor with a primary focus on writing and editing articles on culture and society. As WP has *matured* the number of situations requiring mediation has increased and I have increasingly been involved in dispute resolution. This is not a bad thing, IMO, just a necessary aspect of building a community. Here are some thoughts about why I might be of use to this committee.

My experience in dispute resolution was, for many years, shaped by positions I held in case management and as a negotiator in the corrections system. Interestingly enough, such experience did not prepare me well for the type of dispute resolution one engages in as a member of a community. More important are the skills I've acquired as a member of an intentional community and in the dispute resolution program at the Justice Institute of British Columbia. JIBC uses an interest-based model for dispute resolution and participants hone skills in listening, paraphrasing and reframing. Key components of the model include defining the agenda early on and, once common interests are identified, preparing an agreement and action plan.

My interest in consensus is reflected in that I am the main contributor to the article on Consensus decision-making. I am also in the top-ten editors, by number of contributions, to the policy on Civility. Recently I’ve taken an intensive series of workshops on compassionate communication (NVC).

In sum: In addition to writing and editing articles, I would like to improve my contribution to the quality of the Wikipedia community. I see the Mediation Committee as an important component of this. Sunray (talk) 03:29, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Questions from Committee members:

  • What are the core principles of Mediation Committee mediation?
    • Building consensus
    • Creating an environment of civility and collaboration
    • Contributing to finding ways for people to keep working together to contribute to Wikipedia and grow from their interaction.
    • Helping individuals to move from their respective positions and find common interests
    • Assisting participants to reach agreement
    • Maintaining confidentiality
  • Discussions during formal mediation are privileged; they cannot be used against the parties in later proceedings (e.g. RfArb/RfC). Why is that important?
    • For mediation to work, there must be a climate of trust. If what someone says could be used against them it would undermine openness and trust.
  • What prior experience do you have in resolving disputes on Wikipedia? Please provide links, and how will these experiences help you to be an effective Committee member?
    • WP disputes I've mediated informally have taught me a great deal about how meat space mediation needs to be adapted to a virtual community. The most difficult mediation I've done was one that involved several academics on Marxian economics and related pages. A turning point in this protracted series of edit wars, was "caucusing" offline (or rather off WP talk pages, mostly via e-mail), and then bringing together common interests online. It went on for months, but eventually not only did the warring cease, but the articles were better off as a result of the conflict. Perhaps this is not the best example, as the documentation is voluminous. Nevertheless, Talk:Marxian economics/archive2 is where it begins and Talk:Marxian economics is where it ends. This was a difficult one, compounded by long-standing professional rivalry and entrenched jealousies. I made many mistakes, but the learning was invaluable. The most important learning for me was that the dispute didn't get resolved until I actually got to the neutral position between the disputants. Sunray (talk) 03:29, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Recently, I have begun to assist with negotiations between editors at Talk:Tenzin Gyatso, 14th Dalai Lama#RfC: Neutrality dispute. Initially I had merely joined the discussion, but here, I began assuming a facilitator role. I wasn't asked to do this, but did deem it useful to help build consensus. Sunray (talk) 16:13, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Would you consider takting one of our cases so we can see how you are as a mediator? Ryan Postlethwaite 19:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
    • I would be pleased to do that. I checked the current case list and there are none available at the moment, but I will keep watching. In the meantime, I have taken on Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-05-18 Stephen Hendry. it has some interesting features! Sunray (talk) 01:00, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
      • This case involved two head-butting editors, each pressing a point. The complicating feature was that one had just been blocked for violating 3RR. I contacted the unblocked participant and requested that he modify his behaviour, which he did. The blocked participant continued to evade the block and participate on the talk page. I discussed this with the blocking administrator and we agreed on a strategy. This included my attempting to contact the blocked editor to offer a reduction in time blocked if he would meet certain requirements. I was unsuccessful in reaching him. We restricted his participation on the talk page (while allowing him to signify agreement with the other disputant) and the blocking admin extended the block. Consensus achieved. Case closed. Simpler than warring academics, I must say. Sunray (talk) 07:26, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Mediation Committee:

  • Comment - This is just a general comment, I don't see any problems after looking over the contributions. Sunray is a solid content contributor. I'd simply like to see him mediate one of our cases so we can get a feel about how he would perform as part of the committee. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Remark. I would also be interested in having you mediate a case for the Committee before I make any final decisions; this would allow current mediators to get a feel for how you adapt to and operate in a formal mediation environment (although I am sure your off- and on-Wiki experience will aid the quality of your mediating there). Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Open Tasks lists the current mediation cases, including those that have yet to be assigned a mediator. However, early signs, after a brief review, do cast you in the light of a promising candidate. Best of luck. Anthøny 08:55, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I may be missing something here, but I looked at each of those cases and they seem to be assigned. Should I offer to assist another mediator? Sunray (talk) 16:59, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. Sunray can take the Gilad Shalit case if he wishes, that's fine with me. If it's fine with him and Medcom as well then we can use that as a trial. Wizardman 22:25, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
    • I agree to take the Gilad Shalit case. Sunray (talk) 15:15, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Since I am a non-MedCom member, would someone be able to assist in getting the parties to agree to me as mediator. Or should I go ahead with that myself? Sunray (talk) 18:35, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
        • Done; see "Discussion and comments", below. Anthøny 20:09, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I won't go either way now; I'd really like to see Sunray do a case (Gilad Shalit would be fine) for us, though my initial impressions look good. Keilana|Parlez ici 23:39, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. Daniel (talk) 09:22, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Support: I don't see any obvious issues, and his contributions are wonderful. I'd be willing to give Sun a case to see how comfortable he would be at mediation (per Ryan). seicer | talk | contribs 04:41, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Support - I see no problems here and I think Sunray would be an excellent member of the committee. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:43, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Support, per Ryan's vein. Sunray has the experience and abilities required for formal mediation; I think he would be a constructive and productive member of the MedCom, and I look forward to his joining us. Anthøny 12:30, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Support, after taking a look at his progress at Gilad Shalit. Wizardman 19:40, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Community opinions:

Discussion and comments:

Decision of the Mediation Committee:


[edit] See also