Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Mediation Committee

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was wrong place for this. I am going to be bold and close this. I can't see this resulting in a decision to delete and this is the wrong forum to conduct a reform of the committee or its processes. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 00:16, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Mediation Committee

Medcom is a overly bureaucratic "committee" of editors who impose non-binding solutions on other editors. The first problem with the Mediation Committee is the way you join. MedCom states "Members are selected by consensus of the Mediation Committee as a whole" i.e. "we vote our friends into our little club". However, it later goes onto say "requires a high level of community trust". Now, how can a small group of "committee members" determine community trust? They are only a small group, not all of wikipedia! They clearly overrule. If two don't like em, even if the rest of wikipedia does, they aren't in. The next problem is the whole idea of the committee itself. The groups existence is overly bureaucratic, a clear violation of WP:NOT#BURO. The official committee imposes non binding solutions. Why do we need a group for non binding situations? You can make it as official as you'd like, but no one has to listen to a non binding. Even though all parties all to agree to it, I fail to understand the point of making an official group to deal with it. What's wrong with the Mediation Cabal? In my opinion, this group exist to have a small group of users run around and make so called official actions.

For the Wikihermit Committee,

~ Wikihermit 23:27, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment: I'm not saying we delete it and move on, but IMO a reform is needed. ~ Wikihermit 23:30, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete much like the WP:BAG, this group is entirely unneeded. Closed groups on Wikipedia must be kept to an absolute minimum. Majorly (talk) 23:31, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: Just noticed this group has a chairperson... I almost fainted. Majorly (talk) 23:33, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Delete I have always wondered what the point of this is myself. They don't have any authority, so what is the point? Wikihermit put it well: if it requires a large amount of community trust, then why do only the members approve you? Why do you even need to be approved at all? There's no authority here that needs to be restricted. I have the greatest respect for many of the members, but they don't need to be on a special, restricted, non binding committee to mediate disputes. Weak because Jimbo was the one who made this. i ^said 23:37, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
• Reform the approval process – The "two-oppose" rule is the most prominent example of the bureaucracy. —[[Animum | talk]] 23:32, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Addendum — The MedCom members are obviously well trusted as they are either admins or have been here for a long time. Also, MedCom resolutions can and are used as precedent for ArbCom cases. —[[Animum | talk]] 23:36, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy keep - this isn't how we reform things, we do it by discussing on talk pages. If there is a problem with the selection process, discuss it with the MEDCOM and you will find that we are easy to talk to. This has helped solve plenty of disputes here on wikipedia and deleting the committee would simply mean that more things have to go to arbitration. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:34, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep and consider speedying this as an unnecessarily disruptive nomination. The Mediation Committee was established by Jimbo Wales as an important Wikipedia process and it is questionable whether it is even subject to this type of deletion discussion. Even assuming it is, mediation is an important community process and abolishing the committee that coordinates much of it would be an extremely ill-thought move. Concerns about the member selection mechanism, while potentially legitimate, can be discussed in a more appropriate forum. Suggest that this nomination be withdrawn. Newyorkbrad 23:37, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
  • This is not a disruptive nomination. Coming from someone I respect as much as NYB, I'm very disappointed. Majorly (talk) 23:41, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Actually, Wikihermit's additional comment that he is looking to reform the committee, not actually delete it, suggests that this is a good-faith concern that is simply being pursued in the wrong forum. Newyorkbrad 23:43, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy keep. I suppose we'll try to delete ArbCom next. Mackensen (talk) 23:39, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Good idea :) Majorly (talk) 23:41, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Don't give anyone any ideas. —[[Animum | talk]] 23:42, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
      • You know my opinion. ~ Wikihermit 23:42, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
        • Yes, indeed I do. Apparently your idea of reform is deletion. What, pray tell, would you create to take this or ArbCom's place? Mackensen (talk) 23:48, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
          • We basically reformed Esperanza at a MfD. ~ Wikihermit 23:50, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
            • No, Esperanza was killed at MfD. Furthermore, mediation is an official part of the dispute resolution process. Esperanza never enjoyed any sort of official status. Please engage the question. Mackensen (talk) 23:54, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
• Reform The community discusses/votes for admins and votes for arbitrators, but MedCom members are chosen by the MedCom? Something seems wrong with that picture. Membership should be based on a consensus in an open forum. I think this should be separate from the Mediation Cabal (where anyone can join) but the bureaucracy needs to be toned down. "Brief but concise comments by non-Committee members are helpful, however extended monologues or RfA-style "votes" will be ignored entirely" - So keep comments short, but not RFA-style short, but don't give too much detail either. Mr.Z-man 23:52, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Reform implies something that needs reforming. Is Mediation broken? The nomination has spoken much but said little on what problems, if any, actually exist and must be addressed. Mackensen (talk) 23:54, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
    • The method for choosing members needs reforming. Mr.Z-man 23:55, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
      • The Chair position needs removing, it needs to be more open, it needs to be less bureaucratic... Majorly (talk) 23:57, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
        • According to the page, the Chair is just there to coordinate things. He does not actually have any power (I think). --Boricuæddie 00:00, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
        • You say that these things need to happen, but you do not say why. I find this unconvincing; it's also difficult to reply to an unsupported assertion (no, invoking Wikipedia is not a Bureaucracy does not count). Why are these things bad? How are they undermining Medcom? Why should the community change them? Mackensen (talk) 00:03, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
          • Mackensen, you've yet to give a rationale for your keep position. Majorly (talk) 00:10, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
            • I don't have to; I'm in favor of the status quo. The nomination claims (without evidence) that Medcom is broken and must be fixed. I see no reason to do so, and therefore oppose the nomination. As the party in favor of changing things, you're obliged to demonsrate (A) there's a problem and (B) this would fix it. You almost fainted at the thought of a chairperson. Pretty strong stuff, I admit. MedCom has had a chairperson for years, and you only now noticed? Mackensen (talk) 00:13, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
              • I vaguely knew, but I don't follow the MedCom's history :) OK, I don't think deleting would be a good idea, but it needs some sort of change. Apart from those things I said, I don't know what. Majorly (talk) 00:16, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
          • Well, decisions should be made by the Community, not a single group of people who fancy themselves a special kind of Jedi Council. --Boricuæddie 00:07, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
            • Including non-binding decisions in voluntary mediation? I'm puzzled by the venom and character assassination going on here. No one has yet managed to explain the actual problem, or provided evidence that medcom isn't functioning properly. Mackensen (talk) 00:13, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
• Reform the way the choose their members, but keep the page. As Ryan said, "This has helped solve plenty of disputes here on wikipedia and deleting the committee would simply mean that more things have to go to arbitration." What next? Are we going to delete the Welcoming Committee and ArbCom, too? --Boricuæddie 00:00, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
• Preposterous. Mediation is not fundamentally broken, and honestly, I don't see any real issues with it. Is the way we choose our members broken? Give me ONE example where the Mediation Committee has closed a nomination incorrectly. Ral315 » 00:09, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • The problem is that the community as a whole should be the one who decides who gets to mediate. --Boricuæddie 00:13, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
    • When do you feel the community's views we're not given due weight? Have we rejected someone obviously suited or accepted someone totally unsuitable? We actually listen pretty attentively to what the Community say about nominees... WjBscribe 00:17, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep. This is absolutely stupid. Medcom may be overly bureaucratic, or whatever... personally I don't think it is but I can understand why people may think that. But it's helped solve so many disputes that deleting it will definitely have a negative effect on the project. If people want to propose some form of reform, fine. Deleting it is a really bad idea. Besides, even if somehow a consensus was reached to delete, that doesn't disband the committee, it just strips it of its pages. --Deskana (talky) 00:10, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - though I declare my obvious conflict of interest given my status as a member fo the Committee. I remind people that, like ArbCom, MedCom was created by Jimbo Wales to be part of the dispute resolution system - it wasn't created on a whim. What's wrong with the mediation cabal? Well I invite people to have a look at the relative standard of work happening in both places - archives are available. In many cases MedCom deals with disputes that MedCab has failed to resolve - sometimes successfully. MedCab allows anyone to take a case - that's great in terms of openess and to settle problems early on but can be problematic where people with little experience take on too much. I also note that since bringing onboard one of MedCab's coordinator's, Vassyana there has been considerable discussion about how the Committee can provide help and support to MedCab and act as resource of experience that those mediating informally could tap. I would suggest that while disputants come to MedCom because they would like it to hear the disputes, it continues to serve a purpose. The position of chair is largely administrative - its a question of people knowing who to turn to when decisions need to be made in terms of process and someone to coordinate maintenance tasks that keep the system working. It has no status - given the MedCom does not create binding decisions the chair has no power, their role is pretty much internal only. ArbCom considered a chairman and rejected the idea - they have a need to ensure their opinions are able to carry equal weight and have a team of clerks dealing with a lot of the admin - MedCom found an occasional need to speak through one person and that it was useful if one person had overall responsibility for case maanagement so people knew to whom to direct questions. As to the system by which members are admitted - are there instances of someone whom it is believed should have been a mediator who has been rejected. The system is far more geared towards MedCom wishing to be able to take on those who are unpopular but skilled at mediating than the oppostite. The only example of someone who was widely popular and there was controversy when MedCom rejected them (twice) was Karmafist... I do inivite the nominator and those wishing deletion to explain more clearly what harm they feel this Committee has caused. - which consists of people dedicating time to helping resolve disputes - a far from glamorously or popular activity around here. What injustice are people seeking to right, or is this just the latest thing that people thought it might be fun to delete? WjBscribe 00:14, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
• I have always steadfastly ignored the very existence of this group/process, which anyone is quite welcome to do. It is completely irrelevant and not part of the dispute resolution process, but has a track record of helping in some situations. So delete because it is blindingly irrelevant and because of the creepy clique-ishness of its membership, keep because its harmless and might help if for some reason. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 00:14, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.