Dispute resolution (⇛) |
---|
Honest conduct |
Calming problems |
Negotiation |
Mediation |
Arbitration |
The Requests for mediation process is used to request formal mediation of a dispute. Formal mediation is provided by the Mediation Committee as a final stage of the content-dispute resolution process. Formal mediation is only suitable for disputes over article content, so requests to mediate grievances with other editors will not be accepted.
Formal mediation is governed by the Mediation Committee's policy at Wikipedia:Mediation Committee/Policy, and so requests for mediation must satisfy the preconditions provided for by that policy.
To file a request for mediation, please skip to #File a request.
For a guide to filing a request for mediation, see Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Guide.
|
File a request
- To submit a request, use the box below:
- Further instructions will be displayed at the next page, in a box at the top of the page.
- If a mediation case page already exists for the dispute name, append 2 to the name; e.g. you would type
Swimming 2
below, rather thanSwimming
.
After submitting your request:
- Check that MediationBot has added the request to Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Pending; it may take up to an hour to do this. MediationBot will also notify all the listed parties to the dispute that the request has been filed (or message the Committee if this is not possible). Leave a message here if the Bot fails to do its job.
- Add the case page to your watchlist, in case the mediator who considers whether to accept your request has any questions.
Open requests
New requests are listed in this section automatically by MediationBot. The bot runs hourly [search for "MedComClerk"]. |
Please don't list your case by hand; instead use Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/File. (Even trivial changes to this page are liable to break the case management bot.) |
→ There are currently no open requests for mediation. Please see above if you wish to file one. |
Request for mediation concerning Cryonics |
---|
Cryonics
{{{links}}} Issues to be mediated
Parties' agreement to mediation
Decision of the Mediation Committee |
Chairperson's note: Robert McClenon will not be considered in whether there are enough "accepts" for the Committee to take this case under our prerequisites. I would note that the case at DRN must also be closed before this case can be considered for acceptance here. For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 03:27, 10 April 2016 (UTC) (Chairperson)
-
- I note that the DRN case has now been closed. It should be noted that at this point in time only Cryobiologist's response will be evaluated an an "accept."
- Nome77 agrees only to binding mediation, which does not exist at Wikipedia and, in particular, Mediation Committee policy states that mediation decisions are not binding. There is no choice between binding and non-binding mediation. The purpose of mediation is to seek consensus and the comments in Binding Mediation only refer to agreements which constitute consensus. Nome77's current response will be not be evaluated as either an acceptance or rejection.
- David Gerard's response is clearly a "reject."
- JzG's comment "depends on whether the corpsicle fans will accept a result that goes against them" also suggests binding mediation. As noted in Binding Mediation, "Formal mediation is as binding as the parties make it. Whilst the mediator will often have the parties sign their agreement to whatever compromises are reached in the course of mediation, this is not an obligating or binding agreement and the parties cannot be punished for later breaking with these compromises." JzG's current response will be not be evaluated as either an acceptance or rejection.
- While this case could be rejected at this point for failing to have the sufficient acceptance, I'm going to leave it open to determine whether any of the current responders wish to modify their response. All potential parties are reminded that formal mediation is not a tribunal or arbitration: the mediator will not hear all of the arguments and then render a decision (much less a binding decision). The only purpose of formal mediation is to provide a structured discussion with a view towards trying to bring the participants to consensus.
- Having said what I have above, however, I will note that while the Committee does not have the right to make mediation decisions binding, either on its own initiative or by the agreement of the parties, the parties may enter into an agreement among themselves outside the mediation process that they will abide by any consensus which is reached here. (Though, as noted at Binding Mediation, it must be remembered that such agreements are not directly enforceable at Wikipedia, though some indirect enforcement may be possible. See that link for additional detail.) A response stating an acceptance here which is conditioned upon the other parties entering into or complying with such an agreement must, however, be evaluated as neither an acceptance or rejection since it cannot be the Committee's obligation to determine whether such conditions have or have not been fulfilled. For that reason, it would be best to attempt to work out any such desired agreement at some other place, such as the article talk page or one user's talk page, and only record unconditional acceptances or rejections here.
- The period for acceptances or rejections will end, if the case does not sooner qualify for clear acceptance or rejection, at
19:45, 16 April 2016 (UTC)17:51, 17 April 2017 (UTC). For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 05:10, 10 April 2016 (UTC) Accept/reject period extended due to one party not being given timely notice due to misspelling of his/her username. — TransporterMan (TALK) 17:55, 10 April 2016 (UTC)- It now appears to me that the responses of Guy, David Gerard, and MjolnirPants all evaluate to "reject" and that this case should be rejected for mediation. To allow for the possibility that I'm reading that wrong, I'm going to hold off rejecting it under prerequisite to mediation #5 for 24 hours in case one or more of them wants to clarify their position to clearly say that they are accepting mediation (in which event the case will be accepted since #5 will then be satisfied). If I have correctly evaluated their responses as "rejects," they need do nothing to make that clearer. For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:40, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- I note that the DRN case has now been closed. It should be noted that at this point in time only Cryobiologist's response will be evaluated an an "accept."
Indexes
For a list of recently declined requests, go to /Rejected cases.
For a list of currently open cases, go to WP:RFM/T.
Previous requests for mediation are indexed on the box on the right below. Note that where mediation takes place is generally/often on the talk page; the latter box allows those pages to be searched.