Wikipedia talk:Mediation Committee/Policy/Old policy

message: I'd be grateful if anyone has an opinion on whether this situation is mediatable. I previously posted this request here. The issue started on the Northern Ireland page over six months ago, over the use of the Ulster Banner or any other flag in the country infobox. It has now spread to the use of the Ulster Banner on templates and other pages. I'm not going to state my position as I want to present this neutrally. See Talk:Northern Ireland, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Flag Template#Proposal for warning against inappropriate use of Northern Ireland flag templates, Talk:List of British flags, Template:British Isles, Template talk:UKFlags, Template talk:United Kingdom regions, Template talk:Country data Northern Ireland and probably have a dozen other places. This has resulted in numerous edit wars. Both sides have valid points and no outcome is foreseeable. Needless to say, this needs to be sorted out. It's causing far too much disruption to several articles. I'm unsure whether mediation will work, the issue has been discussed over and over. I'm told Arbcom will reject it as a content dispute, but Im starting to think a enforced decision will be the only solution. Stu ’Bout ye! 10:49, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Use of the [[Ulster Banner]] on Wikipedia

message: The mention of the AMA is no longer required and 'advocate' should probably link to the mainspace article. Addhoc 22:24, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, although there is is still a mention of the AMA remaining. Addhoc 15:07, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed it. Thank you for bringing it to the Committee's attention. Daniel 09:00, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  AMA mention 

message: :Done. – Luna Santin (talk) 17:46, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disambi link to [[Help:Merging and moving pages]] 

message: First, I've edited the page to correct the wording referring to arbitration as a disciplinary process. Like mediation, arbitration's focus is on resolving disputes, not punishing the participants... so, I hope this was a relatively uncontroversial edit which the Mediators will have no objection to.
Second, I unprotected wikipedia:arbitration policy a few weeks ago. This page was protected a while back because it is the sister page to that - so now that reasoning doesn't hold up any more. :-) I hope the Mediators will consider unprotecting, since the history prior to protection doesn't suggest much disruption. Picaroon (t) 05:21, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment 

message: A couple of points I would like to have copyedited:
The article contains the text: "Where the position of one disputant is clearly unreasonable, fringe, or based on a strong point of view, the mediator is not required to subvert ..." It's a minor point, but I recommend changing that to "one or more disputants", since there are often multiple editors "ganging up", and even multiple groups of different "fringe" viewpoints. 
The section "People involved" contains: "Mediators listen to both sides, they attempt to help each party recognize and value the other party's position." This is a run-on sentence; the comma should be a semicolon, or a period. Actually, I would have changed it to "Mediators must listen to both sides, since they will attempt to..."
Also, I really think point #2 in "What mediation is not" should work in a slightly better explanation, perhaps text to the effect that "The sole purpose of mediation is to assist editors in a sincere effort to achieve consensus; attempting to use mediation to "prepare for" arbitration (or other action) is considered devious. For this reason, the communications that take place during..."
Eaglizard 13:16, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Only one disputant? 

message: 
Please add interwiki link for current Farsi page of this policy to prevent users from creating duplicate copys in Farsi wikipedia. The link should point to fa:ویکی‌پدیا:میانجی‌گری. Ammar (talk) 20:39, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. --- RockMFR 22:50, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interwiki link for Farsi page 

message: Suggest removing "among the Mediation Committee members" from the Nutshell. All policies derive authority from either the community or the Wikimedia Foundation, and this is no exception. The community has the authority to change the mediation policy including authority to abolish the Mediation Committee if it wishes. The Mediation Committee is respected and trusted not only to mediate disputes but to provide the community with its expertise and wise guidance on mediation policy. But this is a matter of respect, trust, and wisdom, not of right. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 22:48, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nutshell 

message: During the mediation of the cold fusion article, its talk page had a header saying that the article was the subjet of mediation.  Now, that the mediation is closed, it would be great to have a header that says "this article was the subject of a mediation", with a pointer to the discussion page.  This way, new editors would be made aware of the past mediation. Who could take care of that ? Any thoughts ? Pcarbonn (talk) 16:12, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template for closed mediation 

message: Just curious, really. I am actually writing a paper on Wikipedia and need this bit of information for the paper. Can the answer also be posted on my talk page? Thanks so much! Cheers, Bstone (talk) 17:43, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  How long to medcom members serve? 

message: I need advice on the titling and inclusion of a number of "List of..." pages. there's no dispute; all editors involved with the pages (in its particular wikiproject) would welcome another more experienced editor. Is this Mediation? Or should i be asking elsewhere? --SteelersFanUK06 ReplyOnMine! 01:05, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding mediation... 

message: I understand that once a request for mediation is accepted, it becomes an unassigned case, and members of the Mediation Committee may volunteer (or not) to take the case.  If no members of the Committee volunteer to take a case, will it remain listed as an unassigned case indefinitely, or will it expire after a certain period of time?  As a first-time party to a mediation case, I would find such info to be a helpful addition to this article.  Apologies if this info is provided and I overlooked it.  Thanks. Benccc (talk) 17:45, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  How long do accepted but unassigned cases remain on task list? 

message: What are people's views on renaming mediation facilitation, or adding facilitation to the existing mediation service? To explain the difference, facilitation can be used before there is a dispute, and a skilled facilitator can help avoid conflict. I started a thread here if anyone is interested in discussing the concept and how it could work in Wikipedia. Jayen466 11:49, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal

message: I propose moving this page to Wikipedia:Mediation Committee/Policy. The policy is exclusively relating to the Mediation Committee; this proposed pagemove would allow Wikipedia:Mediation to be left open for general issues of mediation—pertaining to both informal and formal mediation—and allow the MedCom to keep the policy which governs their operations within its own space.
Any obvious issues with this?
AGK 19:52, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed move: &rarr;Wikipedia:Mediation Committee/Policy 

message: This page might get a new policy category; the discussion is at WP:VPP#Wikipedia administrative policy. - Dank (push to talk) 23:55, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category discussion 

message: What is the procedure for appealing this decision [], which seems to have been made rather hastily (less than 48 hours after discussion was opened) and does not appear to represent the consensus of the listed comments? Thanks. Smatprt (talk) 20:14, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Question on appeals

message: Some editors may wish to take their time to consider what to say before responding to questions.  They may feel intimidated by being expected to give quick answers to questions on which they feel they may be challenged.
Some editors may edit sporadically for a variety of, possibly personal, reasons and may not want, or even be able, to allocate a significant period of time for a conversation. Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:21, 27 
May 2010 (UTC)
Some editors may have disabilities which prevent them from engaging in real-time conversation. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:10, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Style and personal preference

message: I believe that no editor should be forced to engage in off-wiki mediation or should suffer any penalty or disadvantage for not doing so.  I believe that editors should not be required to give reasons for not wanting to go-off wiki, they should be allowed to politely decline and continue mediation through WP pages if they wish.  What do others think? Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:47, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Conclusion

message: I guess you all have more important things to do than discuss fundamental issues of accessibility and child protection. I am dismayed that the mediation committee do not seem able to publicly discuss such an important and fundamental topic. 
Maybe we should change our strap line to: Wikipedia - the free encyclopedia that any young, adult, confident, able-bodied, assertive, well-off, trusting, computer geek with plenty of free time on their hands can edit on a computer that they control.
Perhaps somebody could tell me the next stage in dispute resolution.  Mediation does not look a good option. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:51, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: We're all volunteers, so you're damn right that we have more important things to do. Nobody is compelled to participate in mediation. For my part, I've been on vacation, and unable to respond to your comments here.I'm not sure precisely what you want from us. The policy now states that any party is free to decline to participate in off-wiki mediation, and has done for a while (almost since the start of these discussions, I think). What point are you now trying to make? If you're clear about what you want, we can be clear about the committee's position thereon. Regards, AGK  16:11, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The point I was trying to make was the point that you have just agreed with below. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:38, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  I guess you all have more important things to do 

message: I have added some clarification to the last bullet point on private mediation. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:23, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I support your change. AGK  16:11, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  I am still somewhat surprised by the lack of understanding of the issues shown by some members of the mediation committee, but I think the policy now addresses these so I will drop the subject.  Happy mediating. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:30, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  There definitely was some confusion at the outset. For instance, at first I thought your qualm was with confidential mediation (that is, non-public, and therefore not subject to community scrutiny) and not with off-wiki mediation (and therefore through potentially insecure media). Misunderstanding, rather than ignorance, seemed to have been the obstacle. Regards, AGK  16:33, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification added 

message: I was reading the MedCom/Policy page in preparation for an upcoming mediation in which I am involved. When doing so, I noticed that in the Mediators section, there are two sub-sections for "Emeriti mediators" (currently 4.5 and 4.6).  The content of the first sub-section is substantially the same as that in the second (although in different words), but the second section is more extensive, and contains an anchor.  Since I'm (obviously) not a member of the Committee, I don't want to make the change myself (just like I wouldn't make a change to the page of a WikiProject I'm not involved in), but I thought y'all might want to know and possibly consolidate those two sections. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:55, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It's because the introductory text was added to WP:MC/E, whereas that page previously just contained a list of emeriti mediators—and was thus transcluded onto the policy, resulting in the duplication. Thanks for catching that! AGK [•] 22:09, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Duplication on Project page 

message: Should "substantial, successful discussion" not be "substantial, unsuccessful discussion"?--Flexdream (talk) 23:22, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  It should probably be "substantial previous discussion", so I've changed it to that. Thanks! AGK [•] 12:57, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pre-Conditions 

message: I am a volunteer informal Mediator at WP:DRN. Every so often, someone makes an argument in favor of them being allowed to use communications from a prior MedCom case as evidence at DRN. We, of course, say no and link to this policy.
If possible, I would like to also respond with something like "you were told what the policy was". Would that be an accurate statement? Also, it would be useful to have some guidance for dealing with suspected violations; where to report them, whether to delete clear-cut violations, etc. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 21:40, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, editors are told beforehand regarding that policy. So you're right in saying that. Lord Roem (talk) 22:33, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  The privileged nature of mediation