Wikipedia talk:Community enforceable mediation

A few side notes

What I hope to achieve with this is a streamlined and dignified alternative to ArbCom for productive editors. One major gap in the dispute resolution/policy enforcement situation is that there isn't any intermediate point before arbitration where content disputes and user conduct dovetail. Sysops rarely intervene where those waters get muddy and bold responses become contoversial. Ghirla is one dramatic loss, but I suspect this site has lost other good contributors who burn out and quit in frustration. The best solution I can think of is to let some of those established editors assume the responsibility for separating content from conduct and articulate how that applies to themselves.

The biggest pitfall I foresee is that some of the users who end up in arbitration aren't able to assume this responsibility, but would ask to have it. That's why I set forth the statements about selectivity.

I'm open to feedback about this, particularly regarding enforcement mechanisms. In order to avoid confusion with the Mediation Cabal I'm hosting this in my own user space for the present. If the community accepts this proposal on an experimental basis I'd accept a small group of volunteer mediators: past members of the arbitration committee would be ideal, otherwise editors in good standing who've submitted evidence in at least one arbitration case - not necessarily sysops but people who could get mopified if they wanted it. Durova^Charge! 23:05, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I could volunteer as a mediator. Post a comment on my Talk page if you would like more information. Stephen B Streater 21:55, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Followed up at the editor's user talk page. Durova^Charge! 23:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Piotrus

I do support the initative, I have however few remarks about the historical background (i.e. 'Piotrus-Ghirla case' or de facto, 'community-Ghirla case'). One. There is no proof that Ghirla inactivity was caused by the ArbCom case, and the current text is implying that. Two. Whether we would have imposed the civility parole on ourselves is not sure. I and many others (in ArbCom) asked that Ghirla submits himself to it, and he accepted (in mediation). I also stated in RfC, mediation and ArbCom that as a sign of good faith if the community wishes I can sumbit myself to the civility parole as well to show I don't demand anything outside what I believe are normal norms expected of every editor; however no such request was made of me thus speculating on the result of the mediation is better to be avoided.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  05:07, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Would you like to reword that part? You could express it better than anybody. Durova^Charge! 21:11, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I've tried a minor rewording on the civility parole. The statement doesn't explicitly say that Ghirla went inactive because arbitration opened. The timing and his edit comment when he cleared his user page implied that to me pretty strongly. I tried to reflect that implication without stepping over the line. Durova^Charge! 21:14, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I added a few ilinks and slightly adjusted the wording, per suggestion. If this becomes the policy I suggest that the 'history' is moved to talk, as our policies don't usually have 'history of how we designed it' parts.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  14:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Some of the current wording would likely change, and I agree that might be a good step. Glad to see Ghirla isn't gone completely. Thanks for your help. Durova^Charge! 21:24, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) Moving the below from the proposal page. Durova^Charge! 22:24, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

History

Ghirlandajo, one of Wikipedia's most prolific editors, took a wikibreak on 27 December 2006, the same day his arbitration case opened. According to Wikipedia:List_of_Wikipedians_by_number_of_edits, he was twenty-sixth overall in total edits and the fourth most prolific nonadministrator at this site. The large number of Russian-related entries on Wikipedia's main page Did you know? section over the past couple of years was largely his work.

Ghirlandajo had embarked upon an experimental mediation shortly before he went inactive in which he and Piotrus had tentatively agreed to place mutual civility parole upon themselves. Civility parole had never been tried before outside of arbitration decisions. The possibility of a special mediation with enforcement elements, agreed upon by the disputants, seemed attractive to the participants and to the observers.

Excellent proposal

I like this very much. --Ideogram 05:56, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I think anything that would help alleviate the dispute resolution process would be worth a try. However, I'm not sure if there would be many willing participants who would voluntarily agree to restrictions on themselves, even if in an agreement of some sort. Likewise, I'm not sure that those participants will uphold their side of agreements - all they would have to do is withdraw at any time, leaving another futile effort. However, those are just my thoughts. I could be completely wrong on this, and it's certainly a good idea that's worth a shot. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:18, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

This is a very good proposal, Durova. Thanks for writing it up. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:59, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Flcello, I think there is an implication here that if the parties don't resolve it here and agree to self-imposed restrictions the case will go to ArbCom and they will have restrictions imposed on them. I think this was a contributing factor to this approach's promising start in the recent case. --Ideogram 21:38, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

There's also a dividing line: once an administrator closes a community approved agreement it becomes enforceable. At that point the participants lose the option to withdraw. I've been as specific as possible and would appreciate any proposed changes to make that even clearer. Durova^Charge! 23:21, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

• I second the above. Good idea. >Radiant< 11:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Would this be something you'd be willing to test-case with me regarding our little as-of-yet-unresolved spat? And I'm 100% serious about this, if someone's willing to act as the mediator and you're willing to go along with it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
    • I don't know how often I have to repeat this... For the last several weeks, Jeff has been persistently making false accusations and personal attacks about me all over the wiki, and that includes this so-called mediation request. Basically, any recent discussion with him boils down to him namecalling rather than making actual arguments. Several people have pointed that out to him already, but he apparently feels justified in attacking people he considers disruptive. If someone can get him to retract those accusations and attacks, and to stop making them in the future, I'd be happy do discuss our disagreements. >Radiant< 15:47, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
      • This is why I feel this is the best route - I don't believe I've made any false accusations, and very few personal attacks. As opposed to going to ArbCom to get this settled, this would likely work better in the long run. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
        • So you are admitting that you have made personal attacks, and are nevertheless unwilling to stop, just like your statement from last week that you would continue making attacks until I made concessions to you. Such an attitude is not conductive to resolve anything. >Radiant< 16:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
          • I know of one I made that I shouldn't have. I'm not perfect, but I want this resolved. If you'd rather go to ArbCom with it, fine, but it's not due to my not trying other routes. The ball's in your court. We both support this proposal, it's a perfect conflict to make a trial run with, so let's either do it or stop the nonsense and go elsehwere with it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

As an observer, I would like to suggest that to make progress sometimes you have to be willing to bury the past. I think it is not helpful to demand retraction of past actions; if you concentrate on building a relationship conducive to reasonable discussion you may be able to avoid similar actions in the future. --Ideogram 15:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Let's keep this talk page for discussion of the proposal and keep the discussion of the potential test case on my regular user talk page. It's a serious decision to step forward and become an early test case in an experimental program (that hasn't even been approved experimentally as of yet). Nobody should feel pressured. I'd consider this seriously if both sides want it, but they both need to make that choice for themselves. Durova^Charge! 16:19, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

There's a page for that now if you'd like to formalize the request. Wikipedia:Community enforced mediation/Requests Durova^Charge! 03:26, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Replied at Jeff's user talk page. Durova^Charge! 21:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

• I think this idea is very much worth trying. Doubts notwithstanding, I wholeheartedly support it. Durova, thanks very much. Paul August ☎ 21:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

• Yep, good idea. Kirill Lokshin 03:49, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

• I like this too and have some experience in these matters. Possibly too late now but I would have thought I am the sort of operson this could apply to were it to expand. Good work, SqueakBox 00:55, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

• Liking this very much. ArbCom is used too often when this would be better, and becuase of this the cases which ArbCom should deal with miss TLC. Saves a lot of fuss, and I liked what I saw with the trial run - Durova should be commended on this and the handling of the Ghirla-Piotrus hoo-haa. Daniel.Bryant 08:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I like it. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 21:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

• I must say, at the risk of "me 2ing", I really like the look of this proposal, too. I'm looking forward to seeing how some test cases play out. Excellent work, Durova. :) Sarah 04:41, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I was going to ask whether WP:AN was the right place to ask for community consensus on community enforced mediations when you came up with the Community noticeboard, which is of course the perfect thing for seeking community consensus. Great work! :) --Conti|✉ 00:43, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo's input

Looks promising to him.[1] Durova^Charge! 22:30, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Congrats :) -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  00:22, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Experimental phase?

The positive responses so far have been very encouraging. To give the next steps some shape I'll suggest the experimental phase run for three months. At the end of three months the community would propose any structural changes and decide whether to make this permanent. At some point this would move out of my user namespace.

Editors who are interested in mediating through this program should get in touch with me. In most instances I'd bring on new mediators through a sort of apprenticeship - they watch a mediation unfold and discuss it with an established mediator through e-mail.

Although I don't want to jump the gun and try to move forward too quickly, those are my thoughts - I'd appreciate feedback before I add two new brief sections to the proposal. Durova^Charge! 22:40, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and added the two statements. If the experimental phase succeeds I expect some elements to become slightly more formalized - nothing too hidebound. I'd add:

1. A centralized location to request community enforced mediation.
2. A list of community mediators.
3. A paragraph or two about how to become a community mediator. (Additions 1 - 3 would probably fit on a single page).
4. An archive of this program's cases.

Durova^Charge! 16:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Created Wikipedia:Community enforced mediation/Requests. No actual cases will open without community approval of a test run. Durova^Charge! 03:22, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Brilliant work

This sounds an excellent idea. --Dweller 23:03, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Community mediators in training

The following editors have volunteered to train as community mediators for this program:

1. Stephen B Streater
2. Jem
3. Lethaniol

If the program goes into experimental operation I'll list them on the regular page when their training is complete. Program participants who have a dispute should be aware that trainees will observe mediation and discuss it confidentially with the mediator through e-mail. This discussion is more likely to focus on the technical aspects of running a community enforced mediation than on the personalities involved in a particular case. Durova^Charge! 19:00, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

The above text (and any subsequent updates) is now at Wikipedia:Community enforced mediation/Requests. Durova^Charge! 03:44, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Where does this fit in

Where do you think this belongs in the chain of dispute resolution? When should people choose this option and when should they pursue other options? --Ideogram 19:08, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

One step short of ArbCom. Participants can enter binding agreements that impose arbitration-like remedies on themselves. It's a serious matter to open that door. If a dispute's participants can assume good faith about each other they should try RFC or 3O or regular mediation. Editors could go here directly for a dispute where administrators have declined to intervene because user conduct dovetails with policy issues. Wikipedia hasn't had any alternative to ArbCom for that situation. Of course I'd also be happy if this format resolves a case with a friendly handshake between the participants and no remedies, but if they really anticipate handling things amicably they'd be better off with one of the more moderate and established alternatives. Durova^Charge! 19:30, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

One possible outcome

I have a concern that the "handshake" outcome described above, or a 24-hr mandatory chill-out, may be what each party is frequently going to want to accept for themselves (I just don't see people being self-detached enough, especially in such a heated situation that there is policy misconduct as well as content dispute, to say oh yes, put me on parole for a month and block me for the next 48 hours, please). I forsee these weak-willed solutions will frequently go to the community per the new board and get a Return from the community because evidence suggests an ArbCom precedent of greater enforcement. The mediator does what exactly to get both parties closer to accepting ArbCom precedence for their particular incident(s)? I can only imagine that users will agree to less than ArbCom precedence for their particular problem and if that's too far from what the community expects for the actions given, how often does this bounce back as a Return and how long do the actions that led to CEM perpetuate before the mediator throws their hands up and finally sends it to ArbCom anyways (I'm imagining that the mediator will withdraw and someone/anyone will start the ArbCom since nothing was ultimately solved)?

A second concern is how well the evidence, from incident(s) that could have been an extensive ArbCom hearing, is going to be summarized in order to get enough community input to make an informed consensus about the user-suggested/mediator-agreed outcome. I worry that a detached or disinterested community asked to observe a 50kb, back-and-forth, argumentative and wiki-lawyered discussion page will be likely unwilling to sort through it all to give a good or meaningful response. ArbCom members don't easily escape having to draw a decision on a case that heads towards bickering, whereas the community has no similar impetus...and so the result may be poor community response from the more tedious cases. If the community doesn't respond well to a notice on the board and the case gets a default Return...what makes more discussion any more appetizing to the community to respond a future time either? I guess this returns (no pun intended) to my previous concern about how many rounds of mediated, self-medicating discussion is reasonable before the whole mess gets dumped onto ArbCom anyways. And, does it then need to be rehashed from square one for the parties involved since ArbCom wasn't observing it all to begin with or will there be a means of transfer from this discussion to ArbCom case for those times when CEM just can't satisfy the situation?

If two parties can't come to a reasonable conclusion on user/article talk pages, I am not sure why they're going to want to set their own ArbCom rulings anywhere near that which is most likely warranted (and therefore community-acceptable) if the problem gets to the "near ArbCom" state that this is intended for. That's quite a bit to digest, so I'll leave my current thoughts to that at the moment. Thanks. ju66l3r 07:57, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

That's certainly a thoughtful criticism. You've done a good job of outlining most of the pitfalls I considered when I drafted this proposal. Let me add one more for you: the wikilawyer who plays for time in this program agrees to a solution, then moans and wails when they actually get blocked and tries to shut down the program in a firestorm of frivolous complaints.

The key here, obviously, is the moderator's role. I wouldn't take a case unless it appeared the participants were mature enough to settle it this way. Maturity is a quality some people have at age fifteen and others lack at fifty. I'd look for several traits - among them commitment to Wikipedia as a project, willingness to accept responsibility for one's mistakes, and mutual desire to overcome differences. I'd screen out potential cases where either editor has a history of wikilawyering and if I observed wikilawyering during mediation I'd stop the case. Also, just because two participants agree to a solution doesn't mean it automatically slides over to the community. I've given evidence in a number of arbitration cases and I'd screen agreements to make sure they're in line with precedent. Leading up to that time I'd offer suggestions and guidance so the participants work toward a feasible remedy. By the time the community gets a proposed remedy it will probably be something the community can accept, and if it isn't the community members' comments should offer a good framework for adjusting the proposal so it gains acceptance on the second try. If things drag on without meaningful progress, again I'd close the case. I'm not starting this to waste anyone's time, least of all my own.

Three people have volunteered to be community mediator trainees. I'll have them read your criticism because it's a good summary of what could happen in the hands of an incompetent mediator. The people in training are excellent - I don't think any of them would make the series of errors you outline - but it's good to have an articulation of the worst case scenario. Part of what I'm asking is that you trust me. That's why I've proposed this as a three month experiment rather than a fully fledged program. Respectfully, Durova^Charge! 19:29, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

It's clear that you've considered many possibilities and outlined a very plausible system for involved party dispute resolution, given the case filtering criteria above and the ability to end the process short of agreement in cases when it is warranted. Thus, if any case doesn't fit the new system, it's sent back to the machina already in place. You have put in enough foresight for me to believe an experimental period would definitely be worthy for the community to observe the process in action.

I will be curious to witness the test cases as they progress through the process. I still hold that it's somewhat contradictory to expect maturity to remain intact for both parties when you're considering cases that are disputes with user conduct violation undertones. I worry that the parties will have checked a good portion of their maturity at the keyboard when they chose to violate Wikipedia conduct policies (or, at the least, believe the other party has violated those policies which results in the same civility/incivility impasse). It's often not self-realized that both sides were "in the wrong" until ArbCom hands down paroles on the party that brought the case to ArbCom in the first place (as well as the one they blame for the situation). Again, once ArbCom takes the case, it's usually (always?) seen through to the end, whereas here the option to discontinue is not only available but necessary as a mulligan for two parties that entered the door rationally but devolved when dealing with only themselves, their antagonist, and a mediator whose role is outlined as primarily hands-off.

Not necessarily speaking to any of these specific concerns, I believe the badlydrawnjeff and Radiant dispute could have been an exemplary first demonstration of your process proposition, but it appears that won't be the case. I consider both to be mature and reasonable editors, but given even a rather tame dispute such as this one, one party is not willing to work towards a solution with the other voluntarily: one of the requirements for the proposed system. The reason is perceived name-calling without apology and conversely a lack of apology for what's perceived as no actual slight of name. Both mature and acting in a way they believe to be reasonable, but unwilling to accept their partial responsibility for the dispute which in my mind places both quite a way from the introspection necessary to agree upon a responsible corrective measure that would be enforced upon themselves. This is of course why the rule is in place for both parties to be in agreement to settle the case here. The fact that, at this point, even this dispute shows two of Wikipedia's better editors can not yet fit the requirements speaks to my concerns. That is why I will be curious to see how the first few cases proceed that do meet the requirements. Thanks for your work on this, good luck and I'll voice any other help or concerns I have as I see them. ju66l3r 20:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

May I make one request regarding that? It's a big decision to try an experimental program such as this one and there are many valid reasons why an editor may choose to decline. I'll discuss new cases confidentially with trainees from the perspective of running the program, much in the tone of my first reply to you, but I'd prefer not to stray into too close an analysis of specific personalities - certainly not publicly anyway. I could guess at motivations and I could manage a case based on judgement calls, but it wouldn't be dignified to converse the way I'd chat about a sporting event.

In a broader sense, I could foresee this as beneficial even if talks break down and arbitration follows. Whatever reasonable progress the two parties achieve before the impasse could be incorporated into an arbitrated solution, which simplifies the arbitrators' task. Participants would come here because they know that alternative is near. The choice would often be select your own remedies or have them selected for you with a lot of added hassle. In my experience - purely anecdotally - I suspect some disputes smolder without resolution and some good editors leave the project simply because full arbitration is so cumbersome. Your cautions are very well chosen and I respect them. When I draft a proposal I try to anticipate every careless mistake and bad faith maneuver possible, and then write something that takes those antics into account without seeming condescending. It's an art. Durova^Charge! 21:46, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your request absolutely; my intent was not to analyze personalities or the details of any specific case here. I only wanted to point to an example that might have seemed to fit this procedure, but whereas even well-intentioned editors don't always see eye-to-eye enough to meet the criteria as they have been laid out here. In summary (and to abstract from my given example to allay your concerns): I worry that if they fit well enough to meet the criteria, then they likely didn't need the procedure available here in the first place. If they don't fit the criteria here, then they likely needed the process more than they knew/recognized and will end up in ArbCom because of the depth, breadth, and or longevity of the dispute. ju66l3r 22:09, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Let's try it and see. Durova^Charge! 23:17, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Just chucking in my two pence here. I think again what is key is that the cases that will only be accepted for CEM are those that have the level of maturity that Durova mentioned. I've looked at and mediated a fair amount of cases where editors are genuinely passionate about the article they are involved in a dispute with, and sometimes allow this enthusiasm to get the better of them. Their edits can sometimes clash with the views of other editors and this can in turn cause personal attacks. These editors usually have an illustrious edit history and a record of contributions to Wikipedia that makes them assets to the project, and so going to the ArbCom (which some editors, as mentioned above, feel is too cumbersome and drawn out when they would much rather concentrate on editing) is not a situation they would want to involve themselves in. Furthermore, an enforced ArbCom solution which has the potential to drag names "through the mud" could be resolved much more amicably by discussion that has a definite end, rather than the loose end that is sometimes provded by "normal" mediation. This is when CEM would come into its own, as it were; the numerous editors that become embroiled in disputes but are good, valued contributors who would probably be willing to move foward to ArbCom precendents and mot get to that "return bounding" stage. But I completely agree, this only works if each case is screened on its merits. I also feel that if and when this proposal becomes formalised, people will perhaps have more confidence in it compared to when the process is experimental, as Durova explained.

With regards to community involvement, I do see what you have said as certainly an issue; I know I've been a little disheartened seeing the box that says "This page is 57kB long" and having to read it all to understand the dispute. But I think what is important here is the role of both participants and mediators. The set up seems analogous, to me at least, to an (albeit simplified) British magistrate's court. There are two parties who (although they are not avocating directly against each other) are trying to reach a resolution. The magistrates are often lay-people who have the authority to impose the binding decision of the law; it is worth bearing in mind that they just hear the facts of the case and decide upon the facts. And there is the Clerk to the Magistrates, who is usually a lawyer and has a detailed understanding of the law and precedent, and as such recommends courses of action to follow. Ultimately, the magistrate always has the final say. Here, we see the two paries as the advocates, both trying to reach a resolution; the community being the magistrates, detatched from any direct involvement in the case; and the clerk could well be the mediators, who know about precedent from ArbCom and as such give the community the facts they need.

Before there is an expeirmental case, it may seem somewhat premature to talk about how a case could be presented to the community, but perhaps the worries could be alleviated if it was a role of the mediator to provide the main points of the case and provide links to diffs or the like, to encourage community users to become involved in the face of mountains of discourse. This may seem a little risky, but I do feel a balance does have to be struck between presneting a case in entirety to retain the discussion "as is," and ensuring enough community involvement to avoid the scenario demonstrated by Ju66l3r. Jem 12:25, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I think some very valid concerns have been raised here and they need to be addressed before we start any experimental mediation. IMHO there are three mains issues that need to be resolved – how to foster “Buy in” from participants, how to get participants to pick appropriate restrictions and how to produce an appropriate summary of the case for community discussion. With all three, the role of the mediator is paramount (makes me feel a bit daunted now that I think of the diplomacy required :-) ), though in slight contrast to Durova I think the mediator will need to be more hands on occasion, to make sure that the participants stay on course for a successful resolution. Furthermore, as Durova has made clear, the cases will need to be filtered carefully, in particular I believe the following situations would not be appropriate for CEM:

1. When the participants can not agree on any issue and/or there is near continuous incivility between them.
2. When the participants are split into one large group of editors against one single editor (not relevant to the experimental phase, but will be in the future).
3. When the participants do not understand the seriousness of the situation that they are in and/or aware of how the ArbCom process works.

Anyway onto the three issues I raised:

“Buy in” – all participants need to feel that they have something to gain out of the Community Enforced Mediation – i.e. that they understand they will otherwise end up at the ArbCom, with significant stress and restrictions imposed anyway. This would need to be explained in detail to them to allow them to “buy into” the process and its results, however seemingly restrictive.

Picking appropriate restrictions and the “handshake problem” – I was going to suggest that the option of a handshake and 24 hour cool off period, was only allowed if the community Returns the CEM proposal, with the debate suggesting that it is too harsh. Basically if they are at this stage then there will likely be restrictions for 99% of the time, even if that is that they are under parole for a certain amount of time. Thinking about Durova’s comment about the mediator’s role in not letting the participants choose obviously inappropriately low restrictions, maybe my suggestion is now not valid. Again I think this can only work if the mediator is relatively hands on.

Presentation of evidence – obviously we do not want too much information for the community to wade through. One way round this would be for the participants to come up with a summary of the CEM, so that the Community have a short er snappier version of any evidence presented, with links to further evidence (preferably previous RfCs, MedCab etc…). I like the mediation page at User:Durova/Mediation – well structured and easy to digest. I think with mediator help a neutral and fair summary could be agreed upon by the participants.

This leads onto my final thoughts, on a comparison of CEM with ArbCom, which is relevant to the successful resolution of the above three issues. I respectfully disagree with Jem, CEM is not IMHO like a Magistrates court, such a court is much more like the ArbCom. CEM should be like an alternative dispute resolution – where instead of two parties taking their case to court, they save money/time/stress my discussing the issue between themselves until they come up with some agreement. In an ArbCom case it is all about who can make the best case in front of a panel of judges. Again IMHO, in a CEM case the participants should not worry about evidence but concentrate on broad statements of fault and the remedies required. Note in the CEM case there is evidence, but it is likely already presented in a number of other forums and should not be rehashed. In passing, the answer to another question raised above on the issue of transferring of information to the ArbCom should be irrelevant, as the CEM should not be stacked with evidence.

The more I think about the CEM, the more I like it. More and more now-a-days Alternative dispute resolution is being used to resolve legal disputes (read an Economist (magazine) about it last week as it happens) that would have otherwise ended up in court, with obvious disadvantages. Of course success will require participants that are mature enough to deal with the situation, and mediators who are on the ball. Cheers Lethaniol 20:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Two more pence for the pile: Alot of good points have been posed here. I agree with 6613 in the way of how this mediation could go wrong, and I agree that a great deal of this is avoided with screening. Personally for me, I would prefer to work out my own remedies as opposed to having them selected for me. When people are empowered, I believe they are more productive, so empower them to work out their own remedies with a mediator to facilitate the process. Perhaps writing a screening process into the proposal. Regards, Navou ^banter / _{review me} 23:47, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

In response to 6613's fear that people will give themselves remedies that are too lenient, I would say that it's important to educate the parties of the potential consequences if this process were to fail (namely ArbCom). While I don't believe that threatening someone with ArbCom to accept a remedy is appropriate, the fact is that, in some of the situations CEM would handle, ArbCom would have jurisdiction. There's a fine line between informing and coercing, but people need to know the potential consequences of their actions.

In response to Lethaniol's 3 scenarios, I slightly disagree. In #1, where there is continuous incivility, CEM could still be worth a try. If the mediator acted as a "go-between" between the two parties, re-expressing their ideas in a civil and neutral way, they may realize that they have more in common than they thought. Though they may end up agreeing to disagree, hopefully, they will end up on better terms and come to an agreement that will defuse the situation. My take on mediation is that it's worth a try, and it's the mediator's responsibility to judge when no further dialogue would be productive.

For scenario #2, I agree that CEM would not be appropriate. WP:RFC would be an appropriate forum for that situation. And, for scenario #3, I think that it would be the mediator's role to educate the parties about the process and the consequences of not coming to a conclusion, as I mentioned above. Citing precedent could be very effective here. Though pure speculation or fearmongering would be inappropriate, pointing someone to resources about the dispute resolution process, including relevant prior ArbCom cases is simply providing factual information.

If the parties are not mature enough for CEM, we still have ArbCom, RfC, and AIN to deal with situations. Yes, mediators need to be trained to recognize when they won't be useful and not try to play hero, but, since the community is so involved in the process, I'm sure that someone will point out when a mediator is over his or her head or another process is more appropriate. --JaimeLesMaths ^(talk!edits) 10:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Just to clairfy, my analogy was supposed to illustrate the role of the mediator towards the parties involved and the community; that is presenting the relevant ArbCom precedents, as the clerk of court does. It wasn't intended to show the who process as similar to some judicial arbitration. Whilst I agree it's not a forum for old evidence to be rehashed, as it were, if binding decisions are to be made then all involved parties must have a knowledge of previous ArbCom precedents. I am also in agreement with JaimeLesMaths; I feel that in any dispute where editors are concerned for the welfare of the article they may stray into incivility and this process is a valid way to nip the problem in the bud. We are all guilty of incivility at some point of our lives, and I agree that this scenario allows for a calmer and more reasoned perspective. From my experience, when someone external steps in, this often has the effect of getting everyone to cool off. As long as there have not been serious breaches of policy, e.g. personal threats or talk page vandalism, this would be an ideal way to sort out the issues. Indeed, this proposal was meant, I believe, to deal with cases that dovetail both content and conduct issues, ones that administrators may feel to be in too much of a grey area to act unilaterally on. Jem 13:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Maybe Jaime is right - that even if there is a load of incivility on both sides, the process of CEM and having a neutral mediator may cause things to cool down. Cheers Lethaniol 14:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

The way I view things, I agree that there will be some times when an active mediator is a good thing. What I intend to avoid is hand-holding. That's why I decided not to make things simpler on the participants, such as offering a list of arbitration remedies for reference. A good part of the experience ought to be browsing those cases for themselves. When it comes to remedies a little leniency might not always be bad. Arbitration wields a heavy hammer. If editors can get along with civility parole rather than topic banning, why not let them try it? Durova^Charge! 22:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Volunteer

I'm curious to see if this dispute resolution medium will work in practice as well as it does in theory. Certainly for content disputes (with slight user conduct issues) where both parties are trying to improve the article in good faith, this forum should be very productive. And, in cases where one party is not really acting in good faith, we still have ArbCom above. Count me in as an experimental mediator. --JaimeLesMaths ^(talk!edits) 20:11, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Replied at my user talk page. Durova^Charge! 22:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration Cabal

For what appears to be a somewhat similar proposal, see User:Geo.plrd/Arbcab (about which a notice has been posted at Wikipedia:Community Portal). -- John Broughton (♫♫) 22:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Just as a notice, it appears to me to be yet another attempt at some form of committee or extra permission (in his less-than-a-year, he has applied for adminship twice, as welll as for the Medcom twice). That aside, I think that this comment applies quite soundly to this proposal as well. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 22:10, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

• I'm not clear, when you say this proposal, are you referring to community enforced mediation, or the above "ArbCab" proposal? Navou ^banter / _{review me} 22:13, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I mean that the comment posted on that proposal applies to this proposal. And my comments about Geo.plrd are about that proposal. Hope that cleared it up. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 18:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

The option to withdraw during community discussion caused a little bit of confusion earlier on this page. If that's the same issue here I'll address the matter: it's basically a fail-safe in case the mediator makes a goof. Suppose the mediator puts a proposal to the community before both parties have agreed to all the terms. Then it's perfectly reasonable for a participant to say I didn't agree to that! With any luck the mediator wouldn't make that mistake in the first place or would withdraw it as soon as the error comes to light, but the participants themselves shouldn't get locked into something they didn't agree to. So in case that unlikely scenario does occur, the proposal has this safety valve. Once the community approves an agreement it does become binding and enforceable. I hope that explanation clears things up. Durova^Charge! 21:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I suppose I see it as yet another layer of bureaucracy in the already (to me) seemingly complicated chain of dispute resolution. I mean, first you have informal discussion on a talk page, then possibly a WP:30, then maybe a WP:RFC, then possibly the WP:MEDCAB. Usually things do come towards the WP:MEDCOM if they're not resolved at MedCab level. If not us, then it goes to WP:ARBCOM. I suppose I just see it as another loop to jump through. I mean, by all means go ahead with your trial, and if it has the support of some members of the AC and Jimbo, then all the better, I personally just don't see the need. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 21:49, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo and the ArbCom members who've replied have viewed this as a positive addition. For about a year now the community has taken on some of the simpler functions that used to be handled by arbitration. The Committee was formed in early 2004 after Jimbo decided the site had gotten too large to resolve all serious disputes by himself. Wikipedia's grown much larger in the intervening three years. Proposals such as this one help keep their case load at a manageable level - and if this succeeds this may also reduce attrition among established editors. I'm no fan of bureaucracy - I drafted this because I believe it fills a gap. Durova^Charge! 20:56, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

After serious consideration, I've changed my mind on this (the CEM, not ArbCab), I can see how this will help. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 14:16, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

The crucial flaw

I spotted what I think is a flaw in this system. The idea is to ask for community approval of a solution only after that solution is already agreed upon by the participants! But if the people in a dispute have agreed on some kind of solution, why does that need community approval? >Radiant< 14:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

To make sure the solution is realistic, adequate, and enforceable. The only things that would be placed before the community would be remedies that the participants fashion after arbitration precedents. The community deserves a voice if they give something a twist that might not succeed. I anticipate most solutions would win easy approval unless the meditor makes a serious error in judgement. Durova^Charge! 20:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I would add that the community has rights, too. Especially since we are dealing with some content concerns here, if the community doesn't like the solution, it could spark additional edit wars. A dispute may seem to be between just two participants when it arrives, but it could be that the disputants are just the most vocal representatives of two different camps (and everyone else decided to stay out). If the proposed solution doesn't have community input and consensus, it's not going to be enforceable. However, though it's an important step in the process, I think that, most of the time, the community will approve, and, in cases where it doesn't, the reason why probably indicates that ArbCom or RfC should have handled it anyway. --JaimeLesMaths ^(talk!edits) 02:42, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, but the point is that the participants have already agreed before the community is asked. Suppose User:Foo and User:Bar are at odds over article Xyzzy. A mediator is drawn in, and after some discussion both decide to comply with the 1RR, as well as voluntary personal attack parole as judged by the mediator. Problem solved, no? Are you then going to ask the community whether they like it, and can the community say, "hey, you can't put yourself under NPA parole"? >Radiant< 12:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Radiant, you seem to be comparing apples and oranges. One key to making this work as mediation is that no one steps into this program and gets railroaded into something they didn't agree to (via this program). This proposal specifically states that the community remains empowered to enact its own remedies upon editors who participate in this program. So, for example, this wouldn't shield a user from community banning. That would happen through separate action because it wouldn't be mediation anymore. Makes sense? Durova^Charge! 21:27, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikijury

Talking about flaws, a common one with previous similiar intatives was that the 'community' was not really involved - very few people actually comment on each case. What about randomy selecting a number of users and asking them to comment (if they wish) on each case? This would introduce them to this board, and provide us with some random (neutral) much needed input.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  15:18, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

We shouldn't make it obligatory, of course. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 16:36, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, how would users be randomly selected? (I ask because more than 90% of registered users have done less than 10 edits, ever, total, while registered.) -- John Broughton (♫♫) 00:39, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

What if we used a listing of all users with >100 edits? ^demon^{[omg plz]} 02:43, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Of course, not obligatory - just an invitation to a discussion. The best 'working' solution I can think of ATM would be writing a bot which would simply deliver a message about requested thread on this board to several members of Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits (which are more likely to be active than an 'average' editor who has fewer edits).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:38, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

• This program would set up a separate comment page where anyone could offer observations. If someone wants to create a volunteer panel for that or if individual editors decided to hang out and comment, that's fine. The proposal could accommodate that through its current language. Durova^Charge! 21:29, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps name this something else?

Hello! I was just looking at this proposal. I am not saying it is a bad idea, but it is very different in spirit from current Mediation practices. Mediation offered by the Mediation Cabal and Mediation Committee is completely unenforceable. Also, the Mediation Committee protects its cases with confidentiality, meaning it cannot be used as evidence in other phases of the dispute resolution process, even if the mediation occurs on-wiki.

I am also unclear how the mediator for Community enforced mediation is permitted to help the participants reach an agreement in the first place, which is generally more difficult than seeing that the agreement is carried out.

Perhaps you could call it "Community enforced negotiation"?

— Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 01:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

If you have a better title, then by all means propose it. I'm all ears.

Regarding the mediator's role, the way I'd handle things is to refer the participants to relevant arbitration cases. I'd want them to read those cases for themselves. I may comment sometimes and steer them toward areas of agreement, both in terms of their content dispute and in terms of potential remedies. For samples of my approach, see this page where an editor recently solicited my participation and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Midnight Syndicate. I've given evidence at quite a few arbitration cases. That one was also initiated at my request. The six volunteer trainees would basically get mentored in my approach and would operate independently when they're ready for it. Durova^Charge! 22:27, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for my long response time. My suggestion would be renaming it "Community enforced negotiation". I know I am mincing words, but it would be helpful to make generalisations about mediation on Wikipedia, without having to say "except for community enforced mediation".

It seems like your approach might be helpful to some people, although I guess you will find out as you try it. I wish you the best of luck, Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 00:21, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Hm, I see the point you're raising. I agree you've got something worth considering and it came to mind in the early draft stages for me also. I wonder whether Community enforced negotiation have any meaning to people who don't already understand what it is? I'm concerned that this may lead down the route to bureaucratese: a group of people sit down for the purpose of developing a new program. When they get to the part of the agenda where they name the thing, two or three of them mention whatever pops into their heads and the group agrees to keep whatever solution rouses the least objections. So the name seems fine to the people who already know what it is but conveys almost no information to the rest of the world and there's nothing catchy about its sound or its phrasing. Eventually the thing gets known by an acronym because the full name has way too many syllables, which further obscures its purpose from the uninitiated.

If you're serious about renaming this let's think outside the box. About a year ago I started writing an essay about informal dispute resolution. On my text editor it had a descriptive title - I forget was it was now so it must have been dull - and one of the last things I though about before posting onsite was the fight-or-flight response: sometimes editors get angry and act rashly when their body goes into a state that would help them escape from a wild animal...a leftover instinct from our ancient ancestors. That essay became Wikipedia:No angry mastodons, which might not be very descriptive but it sure is catchy. That's essay space and this is dispute resolution, but maybe that sort of sideways thinking could help here as well. Durova^Charge! 05:56, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll try to think of something.  : ) Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 06:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

We've got two threads discussing this now (see the bottom of the page). I've proposed Community enforceable mediation. Durova^Charge! 18:09, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Questions about the mediator role

From the proposal and discussion, it seems as though the mediator has a very limited role. It seems as though the mediators do not have much of a mediation role, rather being more like clerks than mediators. My impression from reading here is that they are limited to citing "case law" and presenting information for community approval. What are the mediator limits envisioned? What would be the appropriate limit on a mediator suggesting solutions? Should the mediator point out potential points of agreement, or areas where the participants are not far off from each other, that the participants are not noticing or giving much attention? Should the mediator steer the discussion in some instances and to what degree? Vassyana 11:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I drafted this proposal to keep things open ended: a mediator could be as active here as a mediator would be in Wikipedia's existing processes. The distinction I aim to draw is between active mediation and hand holding. This isn't the appropriate venue for a participant who needs to be stepped through the process and have everything explained point by point. I'd close a case where one of the participants didn't demonstrate enough understanding and independence. In a different sort of case where both participants know what they're getting into and could use some impartial feedback and a fresh perspective I'd give as much as the situation required. Yet I also like the idea of having the participants read arbitration precedents: not only is that informative about what their real options are, it's an object lesson in where their dispute could go if they don't resolve it themselves. So without formally restricting the mediator's role, I'd like everyone to approach this with the expectation that they'll invest some effort here. Durova^Charge! 04:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you so much for clarifying this for me. I wasn't objecting to providing the ArbCom precedents, I just was a bit confused about the mediator's role. Could you perhaps update the proposal to clarify this? Also, I would be interested in volunteering as a mediator, if you'd have me. Thank you again for your reply, it is most sincerely appreciated. Vassyana 13:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the input. I'll give the proposal another read and see how I could make that more clear. So far this has six mediator trainees, plus a seventh volunteer I've accepted and need to add to the list. If you're interested in joining them please follow up at my user page and describe your experience in dispute resolution. Cheers, Durova^Charge! 13:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

If you have that many already, I'll take a backseat and watch this unfold. I like the idea and I'm interested to see how it shakes out. Vassyana 14:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

One of the really heartwarming things about drawing up this proposal is how many people have stepped forward to volunteer their efforts with it. The door remains open. Warm regards, Durova^Charge! 00:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) I've amended the format statement to clarify things per this discussion. Durova^Charge! 05:13, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Very good changes. I think it clears up any confusion someone might have, as I did, very nicely, while stressing this is for editors with initiative. Vassyana 14:01, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much. It's a challenge to get this just right. Please add any other comments that come to mind. You've been very helpful. Cheers, Durova^Charge! 19:21, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Looking good, Durova. Are there any cases mediated in this manner already? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:18, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Not yet. If you encounter a potential case get in touch with me, please. Durova^Charge! 22:13, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Confused

I've read this over and I don't feel I've understood it. How is it enforced by the community? What exactly is being enforced? Who initiates the process? How are the mediators chosen? What does this mean: "Either of the two participants or the mediator may end mediation unilaterally at any time before the community accepts or rejects it by consensus." What is it that the community is accepting or rejecting by consensus?

Sorry if I'm being dense. :-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem. Basically this addresses a sticky situation: two editors get into a conflict dispute that spills over into policy violations. They try dispute resolution, but the level of mutual trust has dipped to the point where they can't just shake hands and get back to editing. Sysops rarely intervene because the waters have gotten muddy. Up until now the only other solution has been to knock at ArbCom's door. Think of this as mediation with teeth: instead of just promising to play nicely together the participants can impose remedies on themselves such as 1RR or civility parole.

• How is it enforced by the community?

Similar to how remedies gets enforced from an arbitration case. For example, someone makes a post to WP:ANI that gives diffs of 2 reverts in 24 hours and links to a 1RR CEM remedy, then the enforcing admin implements a block and notes the block at the bottom of that CEM mediation page.

• What exactly is being enforced?

Arbitration-style remedies.

• Who initiates the process?

Both participants sign at Wikipedia:Community enforced mediation/Requests. I've tweaked that page per your question to make it more clear.

• How are the mediators chosen?

Right now I'm the only mediator. Seven volunteers have stepped forward as trainees. Wikipedia:Community enforced mediation/Requests lists their names and summarizes the training process. Most of these people already have experience with existing forms of mediation and/or WP:ADOPT. When they're ready I'll move them from trainees to full community mediators.

• What does this mean: "Either of the two participants or the mediator may end mediation unilaterally at any time before the community accepts or rejects it by consensus." What is it that the community is accepting or rejecting by consensus?

Reworded to: "Either of the two participants may end mediation unilaterally at any time before the community accepts a proposed set of remedies by consensus." Does that answer your question?

Durova^Charge! 23:16, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Could you please clarify what do you mean by "participants can impose remedies on themselves"? Is that about one editor suggesting remedies for the opposing party?. If that is the case, it is not clear in the current wording. And if that is not the case, I have not fully understood how this would work. Can you clarify?≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:29, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that clear explanation, Durova, and for the tweaking, which does clarify things. I liked this proposal when I first saw it, but it's making me uneasy now that I think about it, and here's why. I can well imagine a situation where a troll will use this as a way of continuing their harassment of someone they've targeted. We've had a few situations where users have started stalking or otherwise harassing someone, often in the guise of trying to settle a content dispute. I would worry that any community-enforced mediation will force the stalkee into a situation of having to interact with the stalker. Stalking and baiting can be very subtle, and it may not be obvious to the community that that's what's going on. The ArbCom is somewhat attuned to it by now, and they tend to be able to recognize when someone is trying to use arbitration as a way of continuing disruption. It's not clear that the community would recognize it.

For that reason, I would like to see one safeguard against stalkers and one disincentive. First, it should be made clear that users can say no to the mediation, and I think perhaps leaving out "enforced" would help there. It could be community mediation, community-directed mediation, community-recommended mediation, community-supervised mediation. Secondly, either user should be able to choose to conduct the mediation by e-mail, rather than publicly, and if one of them so chooses, then the entire mediation will be conducted privately. This will be a disincentive to trolls, who like to grandstand; if they're denied the ability to use the mediation as a platform for public baiting, they're less likely to be interested in it.

Any thoughts? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:43, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

---

Excellent comments from both of you, and thank you. They cover somewhat different ground so I'll set this answer apart from the rest of the thread.

First, to Jossi. I like your point and this ought to be explicit. Added the following: No proposed solution may be submitted to the community until both of the participants have agreed that it is complete and agreed to all of its provisions. The way that had been developing while the Piotrus/Ghirla discussion was active might be summarized: Piotrus: I wish you were on civility parole. Ghirla: I wish you were on civility parole. Piotrus: I don't think I need it, but if it makes you happy we can both be on civility parole. Ghirla: Mutual civility parole? That sounds fair.

In practice I'd usually recommend a list of ArbCom cases that bear some similarity to the dispute. The participants can use those precedents as a starting point (and while they're reading, also get an object lesson about where they could be headed if they don't settle the dispute for themselves). They'd probably begin by explaining their viewpoints to each other. I'd prefer to see them initiate discussion about remedies for themselves and as long as they're realistic that's their chat. If the discussion veers I'd steer it back and I'd remind them if something was incomplete. For example, 1RR sounds fine, but are we clear about the scope? You've mentioned Sri Lanka, History of Sri Lanka, and Buddhism. Do you both agree to it at all three pages? They decide what to do. I make sure it's practical and complete. Then when all three of us are satisfied I show the proposal to the community.

Next, to SlimVirgin (and Armedblowfish): (This reply is a bit sketchy, so apologies if it's rough around the edges).

To answer SV's questions, this page has seen plenty of responses envisioned how users might try to game this process. Those are good questions and I agree the proposal needs to encompass them. I spent six weeks pondering those things before I opened this proposal. Maybe something will happen in real life that I haven't anticipated, but I'm glad to say every goofy or bad faith scenario that's been mentioned at the talk page has been something I already anticipated in the proposal.

Here's how my version handles trolling and stalking: I close the case and refer it elsewhere. CEM is not for everyone.

Mediators are not required to explain their reasons for rejecting a case: assume good faith has already degraded by the time disputants consider this solution, so in order to avoid worsening a situation the mediator who rejects a potential case or withdraws from a case in progress is not expected to elaborate.

Regarding the specific changes that went into the proposal last night, I haven't reverted (erm...yet) and they look like well meaning ideas that are standard practice in nonbinding mediation but problematic in this setting.

I don't see any way confidential mediation could be compatible with this format. This is about community involvement. If two people came to me and asked me to mediate confidentially, I'd ask them how they'd expect the community to react to a proposal that emerges out of a black box. The community would want to know how we agreed to it, but we've all pledged to keep silent so nobody else has enough information to make an informed decision. Now of course once in a while a piece of information really ought to be private, but if things are so sensitive the whole proceeding takes place between closed doors then those people ought to be in nonbinding mediation or ArbCom.

Regarding mediator involvement, see this thread in particular (and also pretty much the whole talk page): Wikipedia_talk:Community_enforced_mediation#Questions_about_the_mediator_role. This process is suitable only for people who shoulder the responsibility that goes along with binding remedies. If two people are serious about reading arbitration cases and resolving their problem I'll give them all the help they need, but I'll close the case on users who expect to be held by the hand or who appear to be gaming the process. Those are the same individuals who would start a ruckus after the community consensus closed. I didn't realize I could actually be blocked! This isn't fair. I got forced into it! The people who come here ought to understand what it means and choose freely.Durova^Charge! 15:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I understand now, Durova. Thanks for for the explanation. I like this a lot, mainly because it puts the burden on participants via a self-negotiated/self-imposed remedy. Having the support of the community for such remedies, makes it even better. I would only say that I concur with SlimVirgin as it pertains to the choice of name. A much better term would be "Community Supported Mediation", "Community Enabled Mediation" or any other more suitable name. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

There's a concurrent thread a bit higher on this page about naming. I'm open to better ideas than this and concerned about bureaucratese. Wikipedia offers several different mediation types. First priority is to make sure newcomers understand which this means: it's the only one with community involvement and enforced remedies. In an ideal world the title would be both catchy and descriptive, but I'll settle for descriptive. I'm wary of title changes that dilute how these remedies ultimately become binding: some users will surely cooperate until the moment they actually get blocked for 2RR, then holler No, it's voluntary! I don't agree so unblock me. And then when their request gets denied they'll try to make a fuss about how they never understood that. It's simpler to respond when an unblock reviewer can point to the enforcement aspect in the title. Would Community enforceable mediation settle your concerns? Durova^Charge! 17:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

You make valid points about the possible "dilution" of the enforceability of the mediation remedies. I would go along with the current name, unless someone can come up with a brilliant name that can work better. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

The more I think about it the more I like Community enforceable mediation. That has a lighter touch without getting too light and it seems less prone to misinterpretation (as in somebody supposing the community forces participants into mediation). Durova^Charge! 19:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

What do "enforced" or "enforceable" mean in this context? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

See the third question on the new FAQ. Durova^Charge! 00:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Should I write a FAQ for this?

The talk page has gotten pretty long and questions have been duplicating, which probably means that even though this is getting a lot of support the talk page has become confusing. I've been thinking of writing a FAQ for CEM in my user space. Would that be a good idea? Durova^Charge! 18:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

It will save a lot of time if you do so. Just responding to the questions that you so eloquently answered in talk, could be a good start. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

It always seems that important stuff comes up at once. I'll open my text browser. Durova^Charge! 21:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Here it is: User:Durova/Community enforceable mediation FAQ. :) Durova^Charge! 23:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I like the faq, lets move it into the project mainspace as a subpage and reference it from the mainpage of this proposal. Navou ^banter / _contribs 23:56, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Do you want to be bold about it? Sometimes people get testy. I got bitten not long ago and I don't want to bolster any negative impression. Durova^Charge! 00:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) Always revertable. moved here. Durova, and others; your doing a great job. I can't wait untill we can move this into a test phase. Navou ^banter / _contribs 00:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Referenced here Navou ^banter / _contribs 00:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I cleared up the duplication. I'd like to move forward with this too. Haven't heard back from SlimVirgin or Armed Blowfish about yesterday's changes. I hope my comments didn't get buried in all the threaded discussion. I'm about ready to revert those edits, which inserted standard provisions from other mediations that wouldn't be compatible with a binding community process. I'd just rather not step on any toes. Durova^Charge! 00:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

You won't step on mine. If I moved too soon, revert me. I sometimes get over enthused. :P Navou ^banter / _contribs 00:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, you're a joy to have around here. I've been thinking about moving this into the experimental phase. It looks like all the arbitrators have spoken who intend to comment. With their unanimous support and Jimbo's backing I've been of the mind that this could enter the experimental phase when it gets a case. Yet it doesn't seem appropriate to canvass. Once this gets underway I suppose we'd have referrals from other mediations: either they refer people who may need binding remedies or they send us their overflow for nonbinding stuff (enforceable remedies are an option here, not a requirement, and we have plenty of volunteers). What are your thoughts? Durova^Charge! 01:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree, it most certainly won't harm. I see comments addressing perceived problems, and the I see those perceived problems being or have been taken care of. I don't see any outright objections. I think we should be good to go. Perhaps a reposting on the admin noticeboard (not AN/I), and village pump proposals. I don't know if posting this on WP:CN is appropriate, but it would not hurt. Clue me in on the first case, so I can get my hands wet as soon as possible! v/r Navou ^banter / _contribs 01:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

AN would be better than ANI and CN is a slam dunk. Village Pump makes sense also. Also the community bulletin board and renew the proposal's RFC. But wait a few moments while I undo the well meaning changes from last night. And we ought to send word to all of the trainees. And before we dash off, what exactly would we be stating? A request for experimental cases or a request for more review? Durova^Charge! 01:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, the mediator involement language had already been restored by someone else. I took out confidential mediation. Seems that that page is ready. Durova^Charge! 01:48, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) I have not been following this closely except for the past couple of days, so I may have missed some discussion elswhere. In you opinion, do we have consensus? If so, I would state the request for cases. What are you thoughts? Navou ^banter / _contribs 01:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

SlimVirgin didn't follow up on her misgivings after I replied to those points even though she did post to this page and edit the article afterward, so there doesn't seem to be anybody opposing. Would you like to do the honors? I don't know whether it's past this week's deadline at the Signpost, but a note to their tip line wouldn't hurt. I'm going offline. Take the ball and run with it if you wish. You're doing well. :) Durova^Charge! 02:32, 20 March 2007 (UTC)