Mediation - Meta
Dispute resolution > Mediation > Arbitration
This is a draft for a possible mediation framework. It only covers the players in the process, and what they should contribute to the process, not the process itself. The process itself, and additional groundrules to the framework should be in accordance with the precise problem under mediation.
Dispute resolution
What Mediation is not
Edit war
Source of conflict
Scope and Purpose of Mediation
The main purpose of Wikipedia mediation framework is to provide a means to resolve disputes over articles when the standard consensus editing model is not working.
It is not the purpose of the mediation framework to make policy decisions. Iit is not the purpose of the mediation framework to address disputes unrelated to articles, or where a dispute between users has arisen affecting multiple unrelated articles.
Unlike mediation in legal and business matters, Wikipedia mediators are permitted to use their own best judgement to recommend a solution that is in the best interests of the project, particularly where the position of one disputant is unreasonable, fringe, or POV.
List of people involved

The above may need some tweaking. I haven't thought of every eventuality yet, this is just a draft.
The remit of the mediation process
  1. Mediation is solely intended to achieve a way for people to keep working together and build better articles.
  2. It doesn't need to produce mutual amity between the disputants.
  3. It also should not decide any matter of policy. If the conflict is over something not covered by current policy, the matter should be returned to the wikipedia community as a whole.
Again this needs much more. Shall add more, as I think up stuff.
Silent overseer
Dispute escalation
  1. Disputants are expected to make a bona fide effort to resolve their differences using consensus editing and discussions on appropriate talk pages.
  2. If such discussions are not fruitiful, mediation is a possible next step.
  3. Arbitration is available if mediation is unsuccessful. While disputants may skip the mediation step and appeal directly to arbiters, this is not recommended and the arbiters may refuse to hear disputes where a bona fide effort at mediation has not been made.
  4. Where a disputant is dissatisfied with the results of arbitration, or does not wish to follow the arbitration step, other means are available, such as appeal to the community, appeal to Jimbo, or forking the database.
  1. Articles are reverted to their pre-dispute contents and are closed to any editing while mediation proceeds. Boilerplate text is placed at the top of the article and the page is protected.
  2. Mediators seek common ground among the disputants and try to clear up misunderstandings.
  3. Mediators make a special effort to consider the merits of the question involved without regard to the background or editing history of the disputants.
  4. Mediators set the pace to balance the benefits of "cooling off" with the goal of reasonably rapid closure. Most mediation efforts should be completed in a matter of 3-10 days.
  5. Mediators may propose solutions, which may include specific article text.
  6. The mediator may update the article with any changes that both disputants accept.
  7. When consensus is reached, the fact of article mediation and the agreement reached is documented on the article's talk page. Once disputants make an agreement, they are expected to follow it.
  8. The article is reopened to editing once mediation is complete.
Last edited on 6 October 2020, at 13:10
Wikimedia Meta-Wiki
Content is available under CC BY-SA 3.0 unless otherwise noted.
Privacy policy
Terms of Use
HomeRandomLog in Settings DonateAbout MetaDisclaimers