This MedLibrary.org supplementary page on Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Common reasons for rejection is provided directly from the open source Wikipedia as a service to our readers. Please see the note below on authorship of this content, as well as the Wikipedia usage guidelines. To search for other content from our encyclopedia supplement, please use the form below:
Related Sponsors
Requests for mediation is the main request page for the Mediation Committee; requests made there are for formal but voluntary dispute resolution for disputes that have attempted and failed informal resolution. Requests for Mediation should never be the first attempt at resolving a dispute.
Requests for Mediation are sometimes rejected; this page is an attempt to set out the most common reasons for rejection in order to prevent similar problems with future requests. Parties are encouraged to read this page thoroughly, as repetition of the mistakes listed here can increase the chances of the case being rejected.
Basics
There are a number of reasons why a Request for Mediation is rejected by the Mediation Committee; the reason(s) for rejection is listed by the rejecting mediator, generally the Committee Chair, at the bottom of the request. Only members of the Mediation Committee may accept/reject requests and delist requests from RFM page. Rejected requests are listed in the archives.
Common reasons for rejection
Parties do not agree to mediation
- The vast majority of correctly-filed requests that end up being rejected are rejected because one or more of the parties refused to participate or note their acceptance to join the mediation.
Mediation is a voluntary process that relies entirely on the willingness of the parties to participate; if all parties do not agree to mediate, then mediation cannot occur. If one party refuses to participate in mediation, then it is impossible to mediate the dispute. There is no option for the Mediation Committee to compel an unwilling party to participate in mediation; only voluntary, unanimously agreed-to requests will be accepted.
Remember: mediators do not decide cases, they facilitate agreement between the parties. Mediation is often confused with arbitration: mediation is voluntarily initiated by the parties, and relies on the willingness of the parties to abide by the agreement reached; arbitration is enacted at the direction of the Arbitration Committee, and is binding on all parties.
It is the responsibility of the initiating party (the individual(s) bringing the request) to inform all parties of the request. Initiators of a request are expected to use {{subst:RFM-Request}} to inform other parties of the request, and to place {{RFMF}} at the top of the article's talk page, in order to inform other interested parties. If all parties to a request do not indicate their acceptance of mediation within seven days, the request will be rejected without prejudice (that is, it may be revived at any time if the parties indicate acceptance of mediation, or a new mediation request may be filed).
Failure to demonstrate sufficient prior dispute resolution attempts
Formal Mediation is not suitable as a first attempt at resolving the average content dispute and the Mediation Committee will therefore not, with very few exceptions, accept any Request for Mediation where that dispute has not attempted—and exhausted—other avenues of content resolution.
Editors who disagree over matters of content should first discuss the differences between their opinions on the article talk page. Where such efforts fail to satisfactorily resolve the dispute, a third opinion may be pursued; thereafter—presuming the third opinion ("3O") is fruitless—a request for comment can be filed.
As either an alternative to using—or, more prudently, as an option to be considered after the use of—the above forums for dispute resolution, the Mediation Cabal ("MedCab") should be requested. The MedCab offers informal mediation for most content matters; the help of the Mediation Cabal may be obtained here.
After all forums of content-dispute resolution have been exhausted, the Mediation Committee may be invited to assist a dispute; the emphasis here is on after—the MedCom will usually not become involved in a dispute that has not exhausted the methods detailed above.
Summary: Before you file a RfM, make sure... That you have attempted all of the following:
- Extensive article-talk page discussions.
- Inviting other editors onto those discussions.
- (If prudent, and as an extension of the above) Requests for comment and/or third opinion.
- Mediation Cabal (informal) mediation.
If you haven't attempted at least article-talk page discussions and informal mediation, it is unlikely your RfM will be accepted.
For advice on whether your case is yet suitable for formal Mediation, contact an active MedCom member or the Committee Chair.
Failure to comply with the required format
- Some requests filed at Requests for Mediation are rejected outright because the individual filing the request did not follow the mandated format.
Filing a Request for Mediation is accomplished through the use of an inputbox on the Requests for Mediation page. After placing the case name in the box, the user clicks submit, which loads a new page with a preloaded template. The Request for Mediation format template (shown in Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Top/Sample) is intended to streamline the process of requesting mediation, and encourage parties to provide the information necessary to accept or reject the mediation.
It is unnecessary for each request to outline the full history of the dispute until the mediation has been accepted and a mediator has taken on the case. In the past, a great deal of time has been spent by contributors and mediators alike, preparing and working through long mediation requests, only to see them ultimately denied because the essential elements necessary for mediation were not present. If the required format is followed, this does not happen.
Parties often complain that the required format is constrictive, that it does not allow for debate or critical commentary, and that rejecting incorrectly formatted requests is a departure from the Committee's mission. The most clear and concise response to these criticism is that the Mediation Committee's mission is to provide formal mediation as a part of formal dispute resolution; RfM is not a place for debate or critical commentary. If the format of RfM is too strict for the dispute at hand, then it is not ripe for formal mediation.
The Mediation Committee has adopted a policy of generally-outright rejection for any request that fails to comply with the required format: in order to have your request accepted, follow the format without deviation.
Failure to identify issues to be mediated
If the request indicates that there is a conflict, but does not indicate what issues require resolving, then the parties will be asked to clarify. If they fail to do so, the request will be rejected. "Edit war on Example" is not a sufficient description of the dispute for the Committee to be able to make a decision on acceptance. Requests should not direct mediators to other pages to determine context; notes like "see talk for details" are particularly unhelpful and will be ignored.
Mediators review the history of the articles before beginning mediation, but the decision to accept or deny is made based on the summary provided on Requests for Mediation. It is impossible for the mediatiors to review the history of every dispute before accepting, there are simply too many requests for this to be productive. The request template requests issues for mediation to be stated in the form of bullet points, addressing article issues instead of user conduct.
Parties that lack sufficient interested in resolving the dispute to correctly and concisely file a Request for Mediation do not exhibit the dedication to resolving a dispute required by formal mediation. Mediation is a slow and careful process, and is not accomplished in a matter of minutes with a single paragraph.
Issues not appropriate for mediation
Requests such as "please stop this editor from making POV edits," "a mediator is needed to convince this editor he is wrong," "you need to mediate this issue before I have to take him before the ArbCom," and others of this nature are not appropriate issues for mediation. Mediators do not issue judgments; they aid the parties in coming to an agreement. If the request does not clearly state one or more issues on which the parties wish to come to an agreement, then the mediation will not be accepted.
Requests which seek to have a mediator help "prove" that one party is correct will be denied; if one or both of the parties come to mediation with the view that they are right and the other party is wrong, then mediation is not appropriate. All parties must come to mediation with the understanding that both sides will have to compromise to reach an agreement, and that neither side will "win."
Failure to demonstrate good-faith interest in mediation
This is different from the parties agreeing to mediate; the parties may all agree to mediate, but not do so in good faith. For example, if one party enters mediation with comments such as "mediate so we can go to ArbCom," they obviously are not interested in achieving the desired result of mediation: compromise-based agreement.
Further, parties engaging in personal attacks, harassment, or other forms of blantant hostility towards other parties or the Mediator on the Request for Mediation page or during the mediation (by whatever means it is conducted: IRC, email, etc.) fail to demonstrate good-faith interest.
End notes
Also note: Mediators are empowered to end a mediation at any point if in their opinion further mediation would prove fruitless; if the mediation is terminated, the matter may be referred to the Arbitration Committee by any involved party, or at the discretion of the Mediation Committee.
Parties are reminded that while mediators generally do not issue blocks regarding conduct in a case they are mediating, other mediators (or any uninvolved admin, for that matter) may take action if they deem it appropriate. Any admin (including an uninvolved mediator) who opts to take action based on conduct observed in an ongoing mediation is strongly encouraged to consult privately with the mediator before taking said action.
Wikipedia content modification information:
- This page was last modified on 9 November 2008, at 20:14.
Wikipedia Authorship and Review
Wikipedia content provided here is not reviewed directly by MedLibrary.org. Wikipedia content is authored by an open community of volunteers and is not produced by or in any way affiliated with MedLibrary.org.
Wikipedia Usage Guidelines
This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article on "Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Common reasons for rejection".
The URL for this specific entry is:
All Wikipedia text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License. (See Copyrights for details). Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.