Reforming MedCom

[Michaeldsuarez]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Mediation_Committee#Time_to_shutter_formal_mediation.3F (permalink)

Is anyone familiar with MedCom? I'm not. Is it as useless as the people on the talk page claim? What are your feelings on Noleander's proposals? Noleander seems to be pushing for greater centralization and control:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Mediation_Committee&diff=503777479&oldid=503650411

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Mediation_Committee&diff=503830305&oldid=503829939

[Anroth]

Noleander was burned pretty hard but he is right that it was completely useless.

Mediation only works if all parties agree to it. As soon as one or more parties dont, its no longer mediation. People can agree to be bound by the mediators, but as it stands a dispute that gets to the medcom stage is generally past the point where people are willing to compromise.

Of course there is also the problem that EN-WP doesnt really understand that dispute resolution is about making people feel they have been treated fairly, even if they dont get the result they want. Too much emphasis on finding out who is right and who is wrong.

[iii]

[/size]

The Mediation Committee (or MedCom) is a panel of editors who resolve disputes about the content of Wikipedia articles by providing formal mediation. The MedCom was established with the Arbitration Committee in January 2004 by Jimmy Wales and is the last stage of formal content-dispute resolution on the English Wikipedia.

Formal mediation and the Mediation Committee are governed by the mediation policy. The aim of the Mediation Committee is to resolve disputes that concern the content of Wikipedia articles to the mutual satisfaction of all. Mediation is not arbitration because it is entered into voluntarily by the parties to the dispute and does not result in binding resolutions. Formal mediation is not the same as informal mediation because it follows a more rigid process and is different in other ways.

cite

And there's your problem. Why is the "last stage" of "formal content-dispute resolution" "non-binding"? What possible rationale is there which would create a Supreme Court of Content that has no ability to enforce the content rulings whatsoever?

One thing that I've seen happen is if a dispute goes to the arbitration committee, the mediators are wont to delete the mediation pages to prevent anything that happened in mediation be used as "evidence". Apparently, participating in mediation is like going to confession in a Catholic Church.

[Anroth]

Thats fairly standard for dispute resolution. Part of getting people to compromise and work with each other can include admitting their own wrongdoing. No one will sign up if they know it will be held against them later.

[iii]

Thats fairly standard for dispute resolution. Part of getting people to compromise and work with each other can include admitting their own wrongdoing. No one will sign up if they know it will be held against them later.

But why is it the "final stage" in content disputes? If mediation fails, there is nothing left to be done but man the battle stations.

[DanMurphy]

Thats fairly standard for dispute resolution. Part of getting people to compromise and work with each other can include admitting their own wrongdoing. No one will sign up if they know it will be held against them later.

But why is it the "final stage" in content disputes? If mediation fails, there is nothing left to be done but man the battle stations.

I suspect the lawyers/better informed in the crowd will correct me. But in the US, contracts frequently call for mediation as a first step in dispute resolution and if that fails they often call for binding arbitration (to avoid ending up in open court).

Wikipedia (for its own strange, internal philosophical reasons) has no mechanism for binding arbitration over content. Hence the endless battlegrounds over stuff that competent professionals would dispatch fairly easily (Is the West Bank "occupied?" Does cold fusion "work?" Was the second episode of South Park the bestest ever? Is the existence of anthropogenic global warming an established scientific fact? Etc...). Arbitration over content would involve a panel of three or so subject matter experts making rulings on disputed content -- which would take power away from the anonymous amateurs. That of course is the principal reason the "community" would never stand for it.

The current arbitrators are not competent to rule on content (though neither are most of their plain old "editors") and there aren't nearly enough of them anyway. You'd need a completely redesigned system, stipends, outreach to relevant academics and other subject matter experts (who are treated appropriately) AND a competent management structure to prevent it all from going off the rails (for instance, a Wikipedia insider stuffs cranks with academic credentials into a content review panel). The basic outline for how this would work would be pretty easy to draw up, and wouldn't require reinventing the wheel. As an intellectual exercise, easy peasy. But it would require Wikipedia to admit its basic design has failed. This it will never do so... party on, dudes and dudettes!

[Anroth]

What Dan Murphy said - same in the UK, especially in employment. Official mediators can offer binding solutions (as long as both agree) but if it ends up going to an industrial tribunal, it does go against one of the parties if they refused an offer of third party mediation.

[EricBarbour]

IMO, after spending the last year looking very closely at Wikipedia's "governance":

The Mediation system is a joke. A JOKE. Utterly useless, in fact worse than useless. Disputes brought before MedCom usually devolve into
an ugly editwar, whereupon admins run around harassing and blocking, which often leads to arbitration being forced on the disputants.
Worse than useless, because it gives outsiders the misapprehension that Wikipedians "care" about avoiding conflict and chaos.

Did you know that the longest-serving Medcom member is that little shit AGK? Since 2007, in fact. That is one guy I would
NOT want mediating anything. He is constitutionally incapable of negotiating settlements or controlling the juvenile anger of others--
he can't even control his OWN juvenile anger.

Note the requests for mediation. Nearly all of them are rejected, routinely. What good is that?

And look at the list of former "mediators". A mixed bag of
*good, reasonable and honest people (Rosenzweig, Bcorr, Sannse, Wordscribe)
*incompetent bureaucrats (Anthere and WJBscribe, of course!)
*and complete assholes who came to Wikipedia purely to use it as a wargame (Daniel, Deskana, Essjay, KillerChihuahua, Postlethwaite, Will Beback, and now that little prick Roem).

Does that sound like a "mediation committee" to you?? Would you like to be "mediated" by the likes of Will Beback or KillerChihuahua?

[Anroth]

And this is why I hang out at WQA...

[Volunteer Marek]

IMO, after spending the last year looking very closely at Wikipedia's "governance":

The Mediation system is a joke. A JOKE. Utterly useless, in fact worse than useless. Disputes brought before MedCom usually devolve into
an ugly editwar, whereupon admins run around harassing and blocking, which often leads to arbitration being forced on the disputants.
Worse than useless, because it gives outsiders the misapprehension that Wikipedians "care" about avoiding conflict and chaos.

Did you know that the longest-serving Medcom member is that little shit AGK? Since 2007, in fact. That is one guy I would
NOT want mediating anything. He is constitutionally incapable of negotiating settlements or controlling the juvenile anger of others--
he can't even control his OWN juvenile anger.

Note the requests for mediation. Nearly all of them are rejected, routinely. What good is that?

And look at the list of former "mediators". A mixed bag of
*good, reasonable and honest people (Rosenzweig, Bcorr, Sannse, Wordscribe)
*incompetent bureaucrats (Anthere and WJBscribe, of course!)
*and complete assholes who came to Wikipedia purely to use it as a wargame (Daniel, Deskana, Essjay, KillerChihuahua, Postlethwaite, Will Beback, and now that little prick Roem).

Does that sound like a "mediation committee" to you?? Would you like to be "mediated" by the likes of Will Beback or KillerChihuahua?

Both Dan and Eric have it right. Yes, it is completely useless in terms of solving disputes. But this is Wikipedia - the utility of various structures, peoples, institutions is not what it professes but it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. You need to peel off the label and see the real label underneath. To that end the MedCom serves two very useful features:

1) When you (or someone on Wikipedia you like) goes a little bit overboard with the usual battleground stuff, "let's try mediation first" is what you suggest to avoid sanction and make it seem like you're all about the "good faith". So the existence of the MedCom is a sort of one time "get out of jail free" card, which may or may not be accepted, but it's worth a try. If you've been naughty and causing trouble, it provides people who like you (or support your POV or whatever) but don't want to seem like they're condoning your naughty trouble making behavior an excuse not to sanction you.

2) It provides "something to do" for all the useless folks who are just completely incompetent in any of the tasks that are actually relevant to the writing of an encyclopedia but want to hang around the site anyway, because "Wikipedia is important". If you can't write, if you don't know nothing about anything, if you can't copy edit, how do you differentiate yourself from the hordes of vandal patrollers who are in plentiful, and hence cheap, supply? You join the MedCom! And then climb that political ladder further. AGK to a tee.

So you see, this is actually a win-win for all (well, almost all) involved. Trouble-making content writers get a bullshit excuse which delays their ultimate banning for some time. Useless twits get to pretend like they matter. Everyone's happy.

Back in the ol' communist country there was a joke-slogan which went "Socialism courageously solves problems which are not found under any other system!". It's sort of like that.

[The Devil's Advocate]

Marek, you could always assume that not everyone on Wikipedia is an asshole and that some suggest mediation because they honestly do want to reach a compromise.

[The Joy]

And this is why I hang out at WQA...

WQA is a poor man's Monty Python show if there ever was one.

SquirrelyNuts: "Malleus called me 'silly" for my edits! [diffs]"
Malleus: "But your edits are silly. [diffs]"
TweenEditor: "Malleus, you are a weenie for saying that."
Malleus: "I am not the weenie, you are. If someone does something silly, it is obvious they are silly!"
TweenEditor: "Waah! Ban Malleus! Personal attack! How can I go on with my life!?!"
SquirrelyNuts: "We must do something about Malleus!"
[Choir: Oh! How do solve a problem like Malleus? How do catch a drop of golden sun...? A will-o-a-wisp! A clown!]
CautiousCactus: "NPA! AGF! ABF! FBI! CIA! etc.!"
ParrotofDoom: "You're all full of it. Did you even bother to research the whole thing before lynching anyone?"
Mob: "Waaah! Ban them all! Sanction! Sanction!"
Carcharoth: "I shall provide an esoteric POV with a confusing solution."
UnhelpfulSolutionGiver: "Let's forget about the underlying problems and go forth writing an encyclopedia!"
LegalVogonWikipedian: "Where's the RFC? We can't solve problems without talking forever about things and never getting around to a solution without proper procedure!"
Carcharoth: "When a bird sets fire to its penis, we can learn a lot about human behavior, dignity, and proper respect..."
CautiousCactus: "I have warned Malleus on his talkpage. He MUST take it seriously even though he never has before and why would he care about my opinion anyway?
IP address: "PENIS! PENIS! PENIS!"
Malleus's Enemies: [Rehash old battles with Malleus and call for his ouster."
Someone: "Let's close this, FFS...."
Malleus's Enemies: "But Malleus's crimes...!!!"
Carcharoth: "I saw a dachshund sitting on a toilet once. Malleus and his supporters could learn a lot about human behavior, dignity, and proper respect from that."
Someone: [Closes WQA account]

[tarantino]

Noleander is a lawyer, kook, holocaust history revisionist, and a polarizing influence on wikipedia. On his very own ANI subpage we see comments from a GNAA troll, Gary Weiss and support from Silver seren. No wonder you're interested in his recent proposals.

[EricBarbour]

Noleander is a lawyer, kook, holocaust history revisionist, and a polarizing influence on wikipedia. On his very own ANI subpage we see comments from a GNAA troll, Gary Weiss and support from Silver seren. No wonder you're interested in his recent proposals.

Do I have to write that guy up, too?........

[TungstenCarbide]

And this is why I hang out at WQA...

WQA is a poor man's Monty Python show if there ever was one.

SquirrelyNuts: "Malleus called me 'silly" for my edits! [diffs]"
Malleus: "But your edits are silly. [diffs]"
TweenEditor: "Malleus, you are a weenie for saying that."
Malleus: "I am not the weenie, you are. If someone does something silly, it is obvious they are silly!"
TweenEditor: "Waah! Ban Malleus! Personal attack! How can I go on with my life!?!"
SquirrelyNuts: "We must do something about Malleus!"
[Choir: Oh! How do solve a problem like Malleus? How do catch a drop of golden sun...? A will-o-a-wisp! A clown!]
CautiousCactus: "NPA! AGF! ABF! FBI! CIA! etc.!"
ParrotofDoom: "You're all full of it. Did you even bother to research the whole thing before lynching anyone?"
Mob: "Waaah! Ban them all! Sanction! Sanction!"
Carcharoth: "I shall provide an esoteric POV with a confusing solution."
UnhelpfulSolutionGiver: "Let's forget about the underlying problems and go forth writing an encyclopedia!"
LegalVogonWikipedian: "Where's the RFC? We can't solve problems without talking forever about things and never getting around to a solution without proper procedure!"
Carcharoth: "When a bird sets fire to its penis, we can learn a lot about human behavior, dignity, and proper respect..."
CautiousCactus: "I have warned Malleus on his talkpage. He MUST take it seriously even though he never has before and why would he care about my opinion anyway?
IP address: "PENIS! PENIS! PENIS!"
Malleus's Enemies: [Rehash old battles with Malleus and call for his ouster."
Someone: "Let's close this, FFS...."
Malleus's Enemies: "But Malleus's crimes...!!!"
Carcharoth: "I saw a dachshund sitting on a toilet once. Malleus and his supporters could learn a lot about human behavior, dignity, and proper respect from that."
Someone: [Closes WQA account]

I love you, man.

[Volunteer Marek]

Marek, you could always assume that not everyone on Wikipedia is an asshole and that some suggest mediation because they honestly do want to reach a compromise.

I could, couldn't I? And ... 1 out of 20 times I might be correct.

[EricBarbour]

WQA is a poor man's Monty Python show if there ever was one.

SquirrelyNuts: "Malleus called me 'silly" for my edits! [diffs]"
Malleus: "But your edits are silly. [diffs]"
TweenEditor: "Malleus, you are a weenie for saying that."
Malleus: "I am not the weenie, you are. If someone does something silly, it is obvious they are silly!"
TweenEditor: "Waah! Ban Malleus! Personal attack! How can I go on with my life!?!"
SquirrelyNuts: "We must do something about Malleus!"
[Choir: Oh! How do solve a problem like Malleus? How do catch a drop of golden sun...? A will-o-a-wisp! A clown!]
CautiousCactus: "NPA! AGF! ABF! FBI! CIA! etc.!"
ParrotofDoom: "You're all full of it. Did you even bother to research the whole thing before lynching anyone?"
Mob: "Waaah! Ban them all! Sanction! Sanction!"
Carcharoth: "I shall provide an esoteric POV with a confusing solution."
UnhelpfulSolutionGiver: "Let's forget about the underlying problems and go forth writing an encyclopedia!"
LegalVogonWikipedian: "Where's the RFC? We can't solve problems without talking forever about things and never getting around to a solution without proper procedure!"
Carcharoth: "When a bird sets fire to its penis, we can learn a lot about human behavior, dignity, and proper respect..."
CautiousCactus: "I have warned Malleus on his talkpage. He MUST take it seriously even though he never has before and why would he care about my opinion anyway?
IP address: "PENIS! PENIS! PENIS!"
Malleus's Enemies: [Rehash old battles with Malleus and call for his ouster."
Someone: "Let's close this, FFS...."
Malleus's Enemies: "But Malleus's crimes...!!!"
Carcharoth: "I saw a dachshund sitting on a toilet once. Malleus and his supporters could learn a lot about human behavior, dignity, and proper respect from that."
Someone: [Closes WQA account]

I love you, man.

[eppur si muove]

Noleander is a lawyer, kook, holocaust history revisionist, and a polarizing influence on wikipedia. On his very own ANI subpage we see comments from a GNAA troll, Gary Weiss and support from Silver seren. No wonder you're interested in his recent proposals.

Do I have to write that guy up, too?........

He claims to be interesed in atheism. However, most of his articles, until he was topic-banned, were about Jews and on such religious subjects as Jews and Hollywood and Jews and slavery. (No it did not mention jubilees or anything else in the bible.) When it was discovered he was quoting material that appeared on a white supremacist site, he said that he had actially been quoting a duplicate of the article on Radio Islam. This was an uncharacteristic trust in Islam because his contributions to articles on Islam and violence show just the same biases as those on Jews. Members of WP:Islam don't seem to follow the drama boards and so nothing was done to ban Noleander from Islamic stuff.

[Anroth]

WQA is a poor man's Monty Python show if there ever was one.

If only Malleus stopped at silly that would be accurate. He is the textbook example of an uncivil editor who gets away with it because he is connected (And occasionally produces good work). If any admins had spine he would have been on an indef block by now.

[Vocal]

WQA is a poor man's Monty Python show if there ever was one.

SquirrelyNuts: "Malleus called me 'silly" for my edits! [diffs]"
Malleus: "But your edits are silly. [diffs]"
TweenEditor: "Malleus, you are a weenie for saying that."
Malleus: "I am not the weenie, you are. If someone does something silly, it is obvious they are silly!"
TweenEditor: "Waah! Ban Malleus! Personal attack! How can I go on with my life!?!"
SquirrelyNuts: "We must do something about Malleus!"
[Choir: Oh! How do solve a problem like Malleus? How do catch a drop of golden sun...? A will-o-a-wisp! A clown!]
CautiousCactus: "NPA! AGF! ABF! FBI! CIA! etc.!"
ParrotofDoom: "You're all full of it. Did you even bother to research the whole thing before lynching anyone?"
Mob: "Waaah! Ban them all! Sanction! Sanction!"
Carcharoth: "I shall provide an esoteric POV with a confusing solution."
UnhelpfulSolutionGiver: "Let's forget about the underlying problems and go forth writing an encyclopedia!"
LegalVogonWikipedian: "Where's the RFC? We can't solve problems without talking forever about things and never getting around to a solution without proper procedure!"
Carcharoth: "When a bird sets fire to its penis, we can learn a lot about human behavior, dignity, and proper respect..."
CautiousCactus: "I have warned Malleus on his talkpage. He MUST take it seriously even though he never has before and why would he care about my opinion anyway?
IP address: "PENIS! PENIS! PENIS!"
Malleus's Enemies: [Rehash old battles with Malleus and call for his ouster."
Someone: "Let's close this, FFS...."
Malleus's Enemies: "But Malleus's crimes...!!!"
Carcharoth: "I saw a dachshund sitting on a toilet once. Malleus and his supporters could learn a lot about human behavior, dignity, and proper respect from that."
Someone: [Closes WQA account]

I love you, man.

[Claritas]

WQA is a poor man's Monty Python show if there ever was one.

If only Malleus stopped at silly that would be accurate. He is the textbook example of an uncivil editor who gets away with it because he is connected (And occasionally produces good work). If any admins had spine he would have been on an indef block by now.

Actually, Malleus is a decent content editor who gets pissed off with people who interfere with his work. This sort of block-happy attitude is a major problem in Wikipedia, seeing as a lot of those giving blocks have never written a FA.

[EricBarbour]

If only Malleus stopped at silly that would be accurate. He is the textbook example of an uncivil editor who gets away with it because he is connected (And occasionally produces good work). If any admins had spine he would have been on an indef block by now.

Actually, Malleus is a decent content editor who gets pissed off with people who interfere with his work. This sort of block-happy attitude is a major problem in Wikipedia, seeing as a lot of those giving blocks have never written a FA.

Malleus is the kind of content maker they desperately need more of. They DO NOT need more patrollers.
The older, more mature people on WP seem to realize this. Nevertheless, Malleus's block log is quite a mess already.
The worst of Wikipedia's insiders have already tried to block Malleus---and failed.

[The Devil's Advocate]

Malleus is the kind of content maker they desperately need more of. They DO NOT need more patrollers.
The older, more mature people on WP seem to realize this. Nevertheless, Malleus's block log is quite a mess already.
The worst of Wikipedia's insiders have already tried to block Malleus---and failed.

He is certainly a capable and knowledgeable individual. Unfortunately, like many capable and knowledgeable people, he can be kind of a dick about it.

[Anroth]

WQA is a poor man's Monty Python show if there ever was one.

If only Malleus stopped at silly that would be accurate. He is the textbook example of an uncivil editor who gets away with it because he is connected (And occasionally produces good work). If any admins had spine he would have been on an indef block by now.

Actually, Malleus is a decent content editor who gets pissed off with people who interfere with his work. This sort of block-happy attitude is a major problem in Wikipedia, seeing as a lot of those giving blocks have never written a FA.

If only Malleus problems came from his article work.

[DanMurphy]

Malleus is the kind of content maker they desperately need more of. They DO NOT need more patrollers.
The older, more mature people on WP seem to realize this. Nevertheless, Malleus's block log is quite a mess already.
The worst of Wikipedia's insiders have already tried to block Malleus---and failed.

He is certainly a capable and knowledgeable individual. Unfortunately, like many capable and knowledgeable people, he can be kind of a dick about it.

If he's being a dick to the incompetent and ignorant, as he frequently is, who cares (if wikipedia is really about writing an encyclopedia)? I've watched the guy off and on. He can be very, very nasty (but never dishonest or underhanded). His nastiness is generally provoked by his inferiors seeking to be treated as his equals or seeking to wield their "community granted" power over him. Wikipedia should have an essay on how to leave people like him alone to do the decent work that he (for some strange reason) does for free.

[Tarc]

WQA is a poor man's Monty Python show if there ever was one.

If only Malleus stopped at silly that would be accurate. He is the textbook example of an uncivil editor who gets away with it because he is connected (And occasionally produces good work). If any admins had spine he would have been on an indef block by now.

Actually, Malleus is a decent content editor who gets pissed off with people who interfere with his work. This sort of block-happy attitude is a major problem in Wikipedia, seeing as a lot of those giving blocks have never written a FA.

If only Malleus problems came from his article work.

That is precisely where the problems stem from, as Malleus doesn't suffer fools gladly.

And as an aside, I was curious to see if the Wikipedia has an article for the saying (it does), but IMO this is the sort of thing that drives Malleus types insane; I just snipped this out of the article.

Wikipedia should have an essay on how to leave people like him alone to do the decent work that he (for some strange reason) does for free.

It does; WP:BEAR (T-H-L)

[The Devil's Advocate]

If he's being a dick to the incompetent and ignorant, as he frequently is, who cares (if wikipedia is really about writing an encyclopedia)? I've watched the guy off and on. He can be very, very nasty (but never dishonest or underhanded). His nastiness is generally provoked by his inferiors seeking to be treated as his equals or seeking to wield their "community granted" power over him. Wikipedia should have an essay on how to leave people like him alone to do the decent work that he (for some strange reason) does for free.

I'm not ignorant or incompetent, but one time I made a comment in user talk without making it grammatically perfect and he was kind of a dick about it. People like that are no fun at parties.

[DanMurphy]

If he's being a dick to the incompetent and ignorant, as he frequently is, who cares (if wikipedia is really about writing an encyclopedia)? I've watched the guy off and on. He can be very, very nasty (but never dishonest or underhanded). His nastiness is generally provoked by his inferiors seeking to be treated as his equals or seeking to wield their "community granted" power over him. Wikipedia should have an essay on how to leave people like him alone to do the decent work that he (for some strange reason) does for free.

I'm not ignorant or incompetent, but one time I made a comment in user talk without making it grammatically perfect and he was kind of a dick about it. People like that are no fun at parties.

So don't invite him to your parties. (Yes, I know that wikipedia "is" a social networking site/party. But it's not supposed to be one.)

[thekohser]

...one time I made a comment in user talk without making it grammatically perfect and he was kind of a dick about it.

I think you need a comma between 'perfect' and 'and'.

[Willbeheard]

...one time I made a comment in user talk without making it grammatically perfect and he was kind of a dick about it.

I think you need a comma between 'perfect' and 'and'.

Not in standard English usage. Is that another Americanism?

[Anroth]

Yeah, you would not use a comma next to an and. That is a basic English lesson for us here in the UK.

[thekohser]

Strunk, 1918:

Place a comma before and or but introducing an independent clause.

The early records of the city have disappeared, and the story of its first years can no longer be reconstructed.

Also verified (according to Wikipedia, so I take that with a grain of salt) in Fowler's Modern English Usage, published by Oxford University Press, which is a British institution.

University of Bristol (England) says:

A comma should be used before these conjunctions: and, but, for, nor, yet, or, so to separate two independent clauses. They are called co-ordinating conjunctions.

She was a fantastic cook, but would never be as good as her mother in law.

He hated his neighbours, so he never invited them round.

Pip pip, cheerio!

[The Joy]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Mediation_Committee#Time_to_shutter_formal_mediation.3F (permalink)

Is anyone familiar with MedCom? I'm not. Is it as useless as the people on the talk page claim? What are your feelings on Noleander's proposals? Noleander seems to be pushing for greater centralization and control:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Mediation_Committee&diff=503777479&oldid=503650411

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Mediation_Committee&diff=503830305&oldid=503829939

My apologies for derailing your topic, Michael. I shall never take Malleus's name in vain again.

As for Noleander's reforms:

WP needs a binding mediation/arbitration process: think of it as an ArbCom for content issues.
Mediation/arbitration resolutions would be binding for only 6 months or a year (not forever).
The resolution would be binding only if there are three or more mediators/arbitrators and if a majority of them concur with the resolution.
Mediators/arbitrators would be uninvolved, trusted editors, ideally with significant content-creation experience.
Generally, the resolution should originate with the participants (subject matter experts) not the arbitrators, but the latter could suggest compromises.
Notification would be through normal WP channels: article Talk pages, project notifications, notifications to editors that edited the article (or its Talk page) in a significant way, RfC creation, DRN creation, WP centralized discussions, etc.
Parties that refused to participate in the mediation/arbitration would not be able to block implementation of the resolution.
Parties that participate must do so in good faith and not hold to tendentious/uncooperative positions.
The mediators/arbititrators would be able to adopt a resolution that tendentious/uncooperative participants do not agree to (thus, unanimous concurrence is not required).
Non-binding mediation/arbitration would still be available, of course, within the existing Mediation Cabal, or folded into the WP:Dispute resolution noticeboard.
Binding mediation/arbitration could continue within the existing mediation framework; or integrated with WP:Dispute resolution noticeboard or RfC process.. There is no need to create a new framework for this.

Despite Noleander's other... personal issues... I think he's right. I always thought there needed to be more binding (i.e. with enforceable sanctions) dispute resolution steps before it dragged on to ArbCom. There also needs to be an interregnum between the Mini-Arbcom rulings and moving on to ArbCom. I really see no flaws in this. It would be even better with professional conflict resolution specialists manning these "tribunals," but this is Wikipedia we are talking about.

[Kelly Martin]

Fundamentally the problem is two-fold: First, Wikipedia has no process at all to formally resolve content disputes. They have the mad belief that content disputes will resolve themselves organically without any process, and so they refuse to make one. This causes all pitched content disputes to invariably become behavioral cases, when one party or another of a content dispute gets tired of chasing the dog's tail and decides to hit the dog on the head with a stick instead. (In Wikipedia's world, this is called "losing".) Second, in most of the disputes that do reach the level of being a behavioral dispute, at least some and quite often all of the parties are entirely disinclined to compromise on any point. Mediation only works when compromise is possible. When some or all parties are of the mindset that they are unchallengably right, their opponents are irrevocably wrong, and backing off even a smidgeon from one's battle lines is high holy treason, mediation is an entirely useless process.

Basically content disputes in Wikipedia are a strangely orchestrated game of psychological chicken, in which all sides try to goad the other into doing something "wrong" enough to justify a behavioral sanction, while avoiding being goaded into the same. The first side to blink (by being overly bluntly insulting, violating 3RR or any of a zillion other rules, or any of a huge number of other offenses) loses. The game also has a meta level, in which people ingratiate themselves with the ruling gnomes for dispensations to get away with more nastiness than would normally be allowed to regular peons. Long-term success in the main content dispute game all but requires extensive effort at the meta level game.

The purpose of MedCom is to let people who have no experience or competency at mediation pretend to mediate so as to acquire badge points so as to run for administrator or seek office as an ArbCom clerk and eventually Arbitrator. It has nothing to do with actually resolving disputes, which MedCom has never been able to do.

[EricBarbour]

Perfectly put, Kelly, as always. Noleander can talk all he wants, but no one in there will give Medcom more "power".
That might take power (real or imaginary, on second thought it's all "imaginary") from Arbcom, and they simply won't tolerate it.

[Volunteer Marek]

Fundamentally the problem is two-fold: First, Wikipedia has no process at all to formally resolve content disputes. They have the mad belief that content disputes will resolve themselves organically without any process, and so they refuse to make one. This causes all pitched content disputes to invariably become behavioral cases, when one party or another of a content dispute gets tired of chasing the dog's tail and decides to hit the dog on the head with a stick instead. (In Wikipedia's world, this is called "losing".) Second, in most of the disputes that do reach the level of being a behavioral dispute, at least some and quite often all of the parties are entirely disinclined to compromise on any point. Mediation only works when compromise is possible. When some or all parties are of the mindset that they are unchallengably right, their opponents are irrevocably wrong, and backing off even a smidgeon from one's battle lines is high holy treason, mediation is an entirely useless process.

Basically content disputes in Wikipedia are a strangely orchestrated game of psychological chicken, in which all sides try to goad the other into doing something "wrong" enough to justify a behavioral sanction, while avoiding being goaded into the same. The first side to blink (by being overly bluntly insulting, violating 3RR or any of a zillion other rules, or any of a huge number of other offenses) loses. The game also has a meta level, in which people ingratiate themselves with the ruling gnomes for dispensations to get away with more nastiness than would normally be allowed to regular peons. Long-term success in the main content dispute game all but requires extensive effort at the meta level game.

The purpose of MedCom is to let people who have no experience or competency at mediation pretend to mediate so as to acquire badge points so as to run for administrator or seek office as an ArbCom clerk and eventually Arbitrator. It has nothing to do with actually resolving disputes, which MedCom has never been able to do.

Hey! That's exactly what I said and I said it first! Ok, you said it better.

[Willbeheard]

Also verified (according to Wikipedia, so I take that with a grain of salt) in Fowler's Modern English Usage, published by Oxford University Press, which is a British institution.

You will find it a good practice, Sir, always to verify your references. That's the first edition, published in the 1920s. English usage has undoubtedly changed over tha last century. Try the third edition.

Pip pip, cheerio!

Does that mean you're leaving?

And has any British reader here ever said "pip, pip" or heard anyone other than an American say it?

[The Devil's Advocate]

Fundamentally the problem is two-fold: First, Wikipedia has no process at all to formally resolve content disputes. They have the mad belief that content disputes will resolve themselves organically without any process, and so they refuse to make one. This causes all pitched content disputes to invariably become behavioral cases, when one party or another of a content dispute gets tired of chasing the dog's tail and decides to hit the dog on the head with a stick instead. (In Wikipedia's world, this is called "losing".) Second, in most of the disputes that do reach the level of being a behavioral dispute, at least some and quite often all of the parties are entirely disinclined to compromise on any point. Mediation only works when compromise is possible. When some or all parties are of the mindset that they are unchallengably right, their opponents are irrevocably wrong, and backing off even a smidgeon from one's battle lines is high holy treason, mediation is an entirely useless process.

Basically content disputes in Wikipedia are a strangely orchestrated game of psychological chicken, in which all sides try to goad the other into doing something "wrong" enough to justify a behavioral sanction, while avoiding being goaded into the same. The first side to blink (by being overly bluntly insulting, violating 3RR or any of a zillion other rules, or any of a huge number of other offenses) loses. The game also has a meta level, in which people ingratiate themselves with the ruling gnomes for dispensations to get away with more nastiness than would normally be allowed to regular peons. Long-term success in the main content dispute game all but requires extensive effort at the meta level game.

The purpose of MedCom is to let people who have no experience or competency at mediation pretend to mediate so as to acquire badge points so as to run for administrator or seek office as an ArbCom clerk and eventually Arbitrator. It has nothing to do with actually resolving disputes, which MedCom has never been able to do.

I think the more appropriate description is that people rarely go to mediation because they are all looking for the same compromise i.e. where the result is fair to all sides. People in a position of weakness will undoubtedly seek mediation for compromise, as only compromise can get them some of what they want. Those in a position of strength usually only seek compromise in the hopes it well "end the dispute" in a way that is still highly favorable to their position. While there is usually an element of preparing for arbitration, many hope that mediation will resolve the issue.

[HRIP7]

Also verified (according to Wikipedia, so I take that with a grain of salt) in Fowler's Modern English Usage, published by Oxford University Press, which is a British institution.

You will find it a good practice, Sir, always to verify your references. That's the first edition, published in the 1920s. English usage has undoubtedly changed over tha last century. Try the third edition.

The second and third editions of Fowler were both crap unfortunately. A bit like someone modestly updating Shakespeare, taking a third of the lines out and putting new ones in elsewhere.

[lonza leggiera]

Also verified (according to Wikipedia, so I take that with a grain of salt) in Fowler's Modern English Usage, published by Oxford University Press, which is a British institution.

You will find it a good practice, Sir, always to verify your references. That's the first edition, published in the 1920s. English usage has undoubtedly changed over tha last century. Try the third edition.

In fact, the edition actually cited by Wikipedia is the third—i.e.The New Fowler's Modern English Usage (2000) as revised by R.W.Burchfield. Apparently Mr Kohs either conflated the title of the third edition with that of the first two, or possibly consulted a different Wikipedia article.

The second and third editions of Fowler were both crap unfortunately. A bit like someone modestly updating Shakespeare, taking a third of the lines out and putting new ones in elsewhere.

For the issue of whether a comma is needed before a coordinating conjunction separating two independent clauses, it would appear to be immaterial which edition you use. If Wikipedia's article on the comma is to be believed, the third edition says the same thing as the first two—namely, that one is indeed required.

It would certainly seem to be worth checking whether Burchfied really does say—as Wikipedia claims—that a comma must be used in these circumstances. If I remember correctly, he was heavily criticised for adopting a wishy-washy descriptive style, rather than the much more prescriptive one used by Fowler and Gowers in the first two editions. So his saying that a comma must be used would appear to be somewhat out of step with that supposedly non-prescriptive approach.

[thekohser]

So his saying that a comma must be used would appear to be somewhat out of step with that supposedly non-prescriptive approach.

Must or should, I'll now accept apologies from the comma haters.

[ErrantX]

Also verified (according to Wikipedia, so I take that with a grain of salt) in Fowler's Modern English Usage, published by Oxford University Press, which is a British institution.

You will find it a good practice, Sir, always to verify your references. That's the first edition, published in the 1920s. English usage has undoubtedly changed over tha last century. Try the third edition.

The second and third editions of Fowler were both crap unfortunately. A bit like someone modestly updating Shakespeare, taking a third of the lines out and putting new ones in elsewhere.

You're missing a couple of commas there, by the way.

*ducks*

[thekohser]

...a couple of comma's there...

[ErrantX]

...a couple of comma's there...

Have you not met comma?

Nice girl

[HRIP7]

If Wikipedia's article on the comma is to be believed, the third edition says the same thing as the first two—namely, that one is indeed required.

It would certainly seem to be worth checking whether Burchfied really does say—as Wikipedia claims—that a comma must be used in these circumstances. If I remember correctly, he was heavily criticised for adopting a wishy-washy descriptive style, rather than the much more prescriptive one used by Fowler and Gowers in the first two editions. So his saying that a comma must be used would appear to be somewhat out of step with that supposedly non-prescriptive approach.

Well, of course Wikipedia is wrong. Burchfield says on p. 162, "A comma is customary in sentences containing two main statements joined by a conjunction ..." and then gives examples. The first edition simply gave an example of a sentence lacking the comma among its examples of common punctuation errors, with the insertion of a comma indicated as the necessary correction. Fowler's example was still present unchanged in Gowers' second edition.

[Anroth]

I am totally blaming the UK education system. As I was explicitly advised not to. I will see if I can dig out any of my old textbooks. (I hoard all books.)

[thekohser]

I am totally blaming the UK education system. As I was explicitly advised not to. I will see if I can dig out any of my old textbooks. (I hoard all books.)

Regardless, I'll await your apology.

[dogbiscuit]

I am totally blaming the UK education system. As I was explicitly advised not to. I will see if I can dig out any of my old textbooks. (I hoard all books.)

From what I remember, I'd be pretty confident that the comma is optional.

I went to the shops and I bought a magazine. No comma required.

I went to the shops, and I bought a magazine. Not wrong.

I think that a more schooled person than I might suggest that some of its use was to do with rhythm or emphasis. There might be some subtlety as to the implied sequence (or lack of) in the two versions, but in reality both would be read as a sequence of events.

[thekohser]

From what I remember, I'd be pretty confident that the comma is optional.

I went to the shops and I bought a magazine. No comma required.

I went to the shops, and I bought a magazine. Not wrong.

I think that a more schooled person than I might suggest that some of its use was to do with rhythm or emphasis. There might be some subtlety as to the implied sequence (or lack of) in the two versions, but in reality both would be read as a sequence of events.

What would you say about this example?

One time I made a comment in user talk without making it grammatically perfect and he was kind of a dick about it.

[dogbiscuit]

From what I remember, I'd be pretty confident that the comma is optional.

I went to the shops and I bought a magazine. No comma required.

I went to the shops, and I bought a magazine. Not wrong.

I think that a more schooled person than I might suggest that some of its use was to do with rhythm or emphasis. There might be some subtlety as to the implied sequence (or lack of) in the two versions, but in reality both would be read as a sequence of events.

What would you say about this example?

One time I made a comment in user talk without making it grammatically perfect and he was kind of a dick about it.

I'd put a comma in before the 'and', but only in the sense that there is a point where it would make sense to take a breath when reading it. it is heading to being a long, run on sentence. It does not affect the sense of the sentence. I noticed that I put a comma in on the first sentence of my answer, before the 'but', which seems to be a similar grammatical structure. I generally put too many commas in and don't always balance them properly on sub-clauses.