Wikipedia talk:Community enforceable mediation

message: 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. DurovaCharge! 23:05, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Followed up at the editor's user talk page. DurovaCharge! 23:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A few side notes 

message: 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)
replies: text: Would you like to reword that part?  You could express it better than anybody. DurovaCharge! 21:11, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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. DurovaCharge! 21:14, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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. DurovaCharge! 21:24, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment by Piotrus 

message: I like this very much.  --Ideogram 05:56, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: This is a very good proposal, Durova. Thanks for writing it up. SlimVirgin (talk) 07:59, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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. DurovaCharge! 23:21, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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. DurovaCharge! 16:19, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a page for that now if you'd like to formalize the request. Wikipedia:Community enforced mediation/Requests DurovaCharge! 03:26, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

text: Congrats :) -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  00:22, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Excellent proposal 

message: Looks promising to him. DurovaCharge! 22:30, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Congrats :) -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  00:22, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jimbo's input 

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

message: The following editors have volunteered to train as community mediators for this program:
#Stephen B Streater
#Jem
#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. DurovaCharge! 19:00, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The above text (and any subsequent updates) is now at Wikipedia:Community enforced mediation/Requests. DurovaCharge! 03:44, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Community mediators in training 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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. DurovaCharge! 19:30, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where does this fit in 

message: 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)
replies: text: Replied at my user talk page. DurovaCharge! 22:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Volunteer 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: * 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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. DurovaCharge! 21:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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. DurovaCharge! 20:56, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Arbitration Cabal 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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. DurovaCharge! 20:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: *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)
replies: text: 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? DurovaCharge! 21:27, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The crucial flaw 

message: 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)
replies: text: We shouldn't make it obligatory, of course. ^demon[omg plz] 16:36, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: What if we used a listing of all users with >100 edits? ^demon[omg plz] 02:43, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Wikijury

message: 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)
replies: text: 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. DurovaCharge! 04:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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, DurovaCharge! 13:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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, DurovaCharge! 00:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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, DurovaCharge! 19:21, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Not yet.  If you encounter a potential case get in touch with me, please. DurovaCharge! 22:13, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questions about the mediator role 

message: 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? DurovaCharge! 18:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: It always seems that important stuff comes up at once.  I'll open my text browser. DurovaCharge! 21:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here it is: User:Durova/Community enforceable mediation FAQ. :) DurovaCharge! 23:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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. DurovaCharge! 00:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

text: (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)

text: Referenced here Navou banter / contribs 00:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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. DurovaCharge! 00:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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? DurovaCharge! 01:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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? DurovaCharge! 01:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, the mediator involement language had already been restored by someone else.  I took out confidential mediation.  Seems that that page is ready. DurovaCharge! 01:48, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

text: (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)
replies: text: 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. :) DurovaCharge! 02:32, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

text: See this. DurovaCharge! 15:28, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Maybe "Community enforceable moderated negotiation"?  "Mediation" and "enforceable", not to mention the screening/judgement, really don't seem to go together.  —  Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 17:06, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Have a look at Wikipedia_talk:Community_enforceable_mediation#Perhaps_name_this_something_else.3F. DurovaCharge! 17:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't see anything new there.  Or am I not thinking far enough outside the box for you???  —  Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 18:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, that thread has my full discussion of bureaucratese.  This page has also accumulated a lot of parallel threaded topics and multitopic threads, so much so that I sometimes wonder whether anyone besides myself has followed the whole thing.  That's one reason I wrote up the FAQ yesterday: the same questions kept popping up in different places.  Regarding your proposed name change, I guess mediation is simpler than moderated negotiation.  When I hosted the prototype with Piotrus and Ghirla it was a mediation. DurovaCharge! 19:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should I write a FAQ for this? 

message: Perhaps we could write this into the proposal, something along the lines of allowing the editor subject to the agreement, post the request to WP:CN; appeal to the community.  What are you thoughts? Navou banter / contribs 03:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Direct CN appeal is far too gameable.  Theoretically I wouldn't mind a second full round of CEM if both parties agreed to reenter negotiation. DurovaCharge! 16:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I certainly think that there should be a way to reopen debate if both parties agree, but that doesn't really solve the problem. Not everybody is going to be willing to discuss it again, even if the other person did get an unfair sanction. An appeals process that requires someone who is consistently against your opinion to redo the entire thing won't work. -Amarkov moo! 22:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am under the impression that CEM requires assent from both parties before CEM can begin. And editors can withdraw form mediation before the binding accept is returned.  I'm not clear of why redress is required with all these checks in place.  Navou banter / contribs 00:05, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I also doubt that people would voluntarily adopt measures that are too stringent.  I mean, people aren't going to siteban themselves.  Could you give a concrete example of what you mean? DurovaCharge! 00:42, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The issue is heat of the moment decisions. When you are involved in a dispute, you sometimes do not make decisions well. So someone may allow themselves to be pressured into harsh remedies, and then in review three months later decide that the restrictions placed on them are unfair. That won't happen often, but it would be nice to have a way to fix it if it does. -Amarkov moo! 04:07, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed solution to appeals question 

message: In the absense of any strong objections, I believe we have consensus to begin this programs trial run.  We do have issues such as the question of renaming, if this is needed, it can be done while the program is running.  I will leave this section open for a few hours, then remove the proposed tag and write this into DR.  v/r Navou banter / contribs 12:38, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There was a trial run at User:Durova/Mediation.  I do not see any reason not to have another trial run as soon as you receive another request.  You could add this to the list at WP:DR, although I would reccomend listing it as experimental for now.  —  Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 13:01, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That was not a trial run but a prototype.  This proposal was an outgrowth of something two editors tried on the fly at my suggestion.  The trial run here would be a 90 day experimental phase. DurovaCharge! 02:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Okay.  Erm, why not just try one mediation (or two or three mediations, if you prefer), of whatever length, and call that a trial run.  90 days seems rather arbitrary.  Not that it really matters, but... meh.  —  Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 02:30, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mainly because if we designate X number of cases as the trial then nearly everyone would prefer to be case X+1. DurovaCharge! 02:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am not sure about that.  There are many people who prefer informal mediation because formal mediation feels like escalating the dispute.  Similiarly, some people might feel less intimidated by a trial run.  —  Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 03:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Begin trial run 

message: Looking really good, Durova. Thanks for coming up with a good idea and bring it together. Look forward to see this process being utilized. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:44, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, thanks for all your hard work on this, Durova. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:44, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am also mostly happy with this.  : )  Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 06:48, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm also excited to see how this goes. Not from a lack of effort on Durova's part, that's for sure. ^demon[omg plz] 07:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This will be interesting :) Good luck, and well done to Durova and anyone who has been/will be involved. Cheers, Daniel Bryant 07:51, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My thanks go to the seven people who volunteered to become community mediator trainees and to the many Wikipedians who took an interest in this and challenged the proposal to make it as good as possible - especially Piotrus and Ghirla who took a chance and trusted me back in December.  If this works out it'll be worth all the effort.  Cheers, DurovaCharge! 01:11, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Looking good! 

message: I took a quick glance at this proposal, & it seems to me to be rather complex. Could someone write a "nutshell" version of this? Summarize the whole proposal in a sentence or two, as has been done for other policies & guidelines? -- llywrch 17:40, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good suggestion.  I hope the result is satisfactory? DurovaCharge! 00:22, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I want to see a sample case. SYSS Mouse 03:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Durova/Mediation That was the prototype. DurovaCharge! 04:38, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A nutshell version? 

message: Anyone with a good working knowledge create a template and inputbox for the requests page.  My attempts are in the history.  Thanks in advance for the help. Navou banter / contribs 21:47, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll be happy to assist with that, if you can tell me what is exactly needed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Template and Infobox request

message: At first this didn't make sense to me, but then I thought of contract law whereby two parties both feel they can gain by making an agreement, but only if a third party (the law) will enforce it. Maybe someone familiar with the pitfalls of contract law might have some insight or good ideas to share about this. WAS 4.250 05:32, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's one good way of putting this. DurovaCharge! 08:57, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Contract law

message: How does an editor remove their name from a unilateral request ? My username was added by an editor to make up the two names but I have no content dispute with them at this time and they have never used my talk page (i.e. never ever ! so kind of out of the blue). If someone adds your name then is it valid to just remove all references to your name thus indicating that there is no second party. How do you indicate that this is unilateral as opposed to a mutual decision to use WP:CEM ?
Should an editor have used usertalk between the editors first to mutually decide this action as opposed to one unilaterally, choosing this forum (i.e. IMHO forum shopping) ?
I propose that the WP:CEM asks that,
:*"One editor should not unilaterally decide to use this forum without prior consultation with the other editor or editors using their user talk pages."
...or wording to that effect. 
Basically it would be a waste of your time if there is only one person present especially if it is unlikely that the others would be cajoled into signing up. Ttiotsw 00:30, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see that there's a need to remove your name from a request. Just make it clear that you won't participate, and it can't go forward. Consent is required from both editors, and it shouldn't be held against you if you never agreed to use this in the first place. -Amarkov moo! 04:19, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  How does an editor remove their name from a request. Proposed change to [[WP:CEM]]. 

message: This page does not appear to be active. Is anything still being done with CEM? Perhaps we could link to a few med cases that used it succesfully? >Radiant< 12:20, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Whats your angle?  There is one active case with the last edit as of this posting here dated 21:01, 20 May 2007 Local.  Additionally, it appears one party of a two party dispute is attempting to start a mediation.  Please review the /Requests subpage for recent activity.  I'm not sure tagging as historical or equivalent (if I am reading into your post too much, please correct me) is appropriate as its first run is not yet complete.  Navou 12:31, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My angle is curiosity, and wondering where the activity lies. I had not noticed the requests ilnk near the bottom, so thanks. >Radiant< 12:44, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I encourage curiosity.  :P  If you see any disputes that this venue may be useful, please feel free to throw some this way.  Any suggestions how we can make the requests area more visible? Navou 13:11, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Put it in a big purple box with <blink> tags? :P >Radiant< 13:12, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I say 

message: From WP:CEM The experimental phase will run for three months. At the end of that time the community will decide whether to keep the program, modify it and keep it, or close it and mark it historical.
We have crossed that line.  We've not had much success in the way of successfully mediated cases, however, I would like to pose the question of what to do now.  My suggestion is a modification.  Its a good principal, just not very widely used.  
I'm not suggesting to mark historical and move on.  I'd much rather leave this in the dispute resolution toolbox.  I'm with the school of thought, the more tools, the better.  Surely this can be applied here.  Navou  banter  00:41, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine by me.  Let's see what other Wikipedians have to say.  Thanks for all your help, Navou.  You've been a trooper. DurovaCharge! 01:39, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I still have concerns with this, but since they're about how often this will actually be useful and how much people will even attempt to use this, I have no objection to leaving it as an option. -Amarkov moo! 04:48, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Agree with eagle. Its easy to remove, hard to get consensus. Maybe it takes time for a new process to bed in and find its niche. It seems reasonably sensible and may become wider used - the extra time is no hardship. FT2 (Talk | email) 22:42, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm agreeable to revisiting in three months.  Sounds like a good idea. Navou  banter  22:47, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Check the /Requests subpage. Navou  banter  14:00, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hm, I found two closed cases, one that didn't work out after two months, and one that was not accepted by one of the two parties. That does not sound too promising. So I suppose what this needs is broader advertising, and more cases? >Radiant< 14:06, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I thought about purple box and some blink tags :) No, in seriousness, you and I agree.  I know Durova has suggested it to disputes before.  I've coded it into DR and the template, but I'm game for fresh ideas.  Navou  banter  14:27, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Experimental phase 

message: We've gotten the chance to mediate disputes that have more than two editors.  Would anyone object to taking these on at the mediator's discretion?  The same basic parameters would apply: all involved editors must agree before any sanctions could be implemented. DurovaCharge! 00:34, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought about purple box and some blink tags :) No, in seriousness, you and I agree.  I know Durova has suggested it to disputes before.  I've coded it into DR and the template, but I'm game for fresh ideas.  Navou  banter  14:27, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expanded number of participants? 

message: There is a bit of a problem with using this venue:  there is no discussion of how to initiate a CEM or where to go to do so.  The article goes from the introduction straight to “Format”, which begins, “The participants receive a page to resolve their differences and work out appropriate remedies.”  From whom?  What is the page called?  Where do you go to ask for one?  I really don’t know the answer myself.
I’d also like to suggest an addition to the final part of the process.  Since this mediation procedure is focused mostly on content issues, it would be a good idea for the closing mediator to post the community-endorsed agreement on the talk pages of the affected article(s), including a link to the mediation page.  This offers two benefits.  First, it reveals an acceptable compromise worked out as mutually acceptable by experienced, knowledgeable editors who are strong advocates of opposing viewpoints.  Others tempted to edit-war might be challenged not to do so by reviewing what has gone before and worked, which would contribute to the increased stability of contentious articles.  Secondly, it would show an example of how such experienced editors with adversarial positions were able to work out a constructive compromise (not to mention that, yes, Virginia, editors can work out such a compromise on their own initiative without edit wars or admin-imposed “time outs”).  Askari Mark (Talk) 22:34, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Process issue 

message: I've taken the bold move of going ahead and marking this . The experimental phase has ended, nothing ever really took off here, and it seems this project died a peaceful and quiet death. No disrespect to the creators though, it would've been nice had this worked out. I've also removed it from the  template. ^demon[omg plz] 17:00, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historical? 

message: A query was added in WT:EVOL that might benefit from a chemist's input as well:
:Primordial soup: Controversial statements tagged "citation needed" since at least Aug 2012
There are some key uncited statements relating to peptide chain termination in Miller–Urey and Oró experiments. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 05:51, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Primordial soup]]: Controversial statements tagged "citation needed" since at least Aug 2012