" issues, because these ones are unlikely to be resolved through discussion, and are usually very demanding on the MC members.

However, issues between users, such as Wik, Theresa, 172, VV etc... are typically issues that should go through mediation before going through arbitration.

It seems people are totally forgetting the procedure of dispute resolution as suggested some time ago. Arbitration is about punishment, mediation is a soft way to achieve dispute resolution between participants. It is a gentler way to resolve a conflict. And it is also meant to be more gentle on others participants as it is a private solution, which do not force users to see an ugly display of accusations, threats, insults and generally speaking attacks between users, as we can see these days here and on the mailing lists. 

I have a problem with this. The MC basically finds itself plagued by trolls, and good participants just plainly refuse mediation. So, how useful is the mediation committee ? 

I'd like to mention something. In real life, people are more willing to accept mediation because there is a cost to arbitration that does not exist with mediation. This cost is in particular that
 arbitration is a long process
 arbitration is costly
 arbitration is sometimes unfair

I wonder if any arbitration on Wikipedia should not have a *cost* to all those involved. Apart from very specific cases of troll handling, most conflicts between regular participants are *not* due to only one party. If arbitration was more costly, perhaps participants would be more willing to discuss first, before heading to punishement. Perhaps should they be a cost, whatever the outcome ? Perhaps should the decision taken by the AC more costly in case there was refusal to discuss ? 

I believe that the concept of formal mediation here at Wikipedia has been a failure thus far.  This isn't entirely the mediators' fault, but rather a process and structure problem.  Contributing factors include:
 Mediation is being considered too late in the conflict cycle.  Once positions have been staked out, publicly and in permanent media, mediation is much more difficult.
 To be effective, mediators must have unimpeachable respect.  Real-world mediators are retired judges, former statesmen, former heads of corporations.  They are effective in part because they are perceived to have discretion, and balance.  The parties they serve believe they will act predictably and fairly.  The committee at present includes some members not known for this.  Moreover, Wikipedians as a rule do not extend ""unimpeachable respect"" to much of anyone (due to the nature of the culture here).
 Mediation requests are presently public.  They should not be (c.f. MeatBall:GetARoom), since it leads to playing to the court.
 Process is ""not yet fully decided"" (Wikipedia:Mediation Committee), which discourages people who could, potentially, be helped; indeed, the mediation-releated pages have an unfinished, essay-like feel to them overall.
 Some private discussion amongst the mediators themselves might help in this regard (GetARoom again), since it is more difficult to reach consensus in a MeatBall:fishbowl.  The WP community should get over its ""all discussions public and archived forever"" fetish, which is disfunctional.  Consider the success of the IRC channel (which is more private than the wiki or the ML).
 There are inappropriately informal expectations of the mediators themselves (""Mediators are independant in their choice of whose case to mediate, and how to mediate.""  Wikipedia:Mediation Committee) while there are rigid and overbroad rules for those who they serve (""You will then have to agree both on a mediator,"" ""The mediator will check your motivation as regards mediation,""
 It may be necessary to send some people to mediation.  I can think of several cases where contributors could, appropriately, be asked by the community to discontinue their edits to an article or group of articles until mediation is complete.  Lots of real-world success with this.
 We have a problem with some articles where carefully-crafted compromises are undone by editors who weren't involved in the original compromise, which prevents healing.  I know of no good way around this, but obseve that it is a barrier to successful mediation.

I believe that the concept of formal mediation here at Wikipedia has been a failure thus far.  This isn't entirely the mediators' fault, but rather a process and structure problem.  Contributing factors include:
 Mediation is being considered too late in the conflict cycle.  Once positions have been staked out, publicly and in permanent media, mediation is much more difficult.
True. This said, just a handful of people can't all the ti