User:Peter M Dodge/DR watch

Welcome to Wizardry Dragon's Dispute Resolution Watch Page

New MedCom Requests: 4
Unassigned MedCom Requests: 2
Assigned MedCom Requests: 6
Open ArbCom Requests: 5
Open ArbCom Cases: 7

Early Intervention: Requests for Comment • Mediation Cabal • Personal Attack Noticeboard • Incidents Noticeboard
Mediation Committee: Main page • Requests
Arbitration Committee: Main page • Requests

Watch: New Requests, Requests for Clarification, Motions in Prior Cases

Server Cache: Purge the server cache of this page

Dispute Resolution Watch[edit]

Hello, and welcome to my dispute resolution watch page. Here I try to keep an eye on disputes that are going on in Wikipedia, and try to help out where I can. You can feel free to use this page to watch Wikipedia disputes yourself, as well. If you would like to change the layout of the page, or request something else watched, please do so on the talk page. This page is maintained by myself and Eagle_101, although anyone can feel free to assist.

Early Intervention[edit]

While the Mediation Committee and Arbitration Committee are the dispute resolution venues that see the most attention, there are several earlier steps that are possible in dispute resolution. One should take these steps before elevating the dispute to a higher venue.

Request for Comment - This is the first step in dispute resolution and can be used as a tool to build consensus.
Mediation Cabal - Similar to MedCom, this is a "first step" mediation venue.

Mediation Committee[edit]

This user subpage is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference.
If you want to revive discussion regarding the subject, you might try contacting the user in question or seeking broader input via a forum such as the village pump.
The Mediation Committee has been disbanded as a result of this discussion.
Other dispute resolution processes should be used for content issues.

Shortcuts

The Mediation Committee was a panel of editors who resolved content disputes on Wikipedia articles by providing formal mediation. The Mediation Committee was established with the Arbitration Committee in 2003 by Jimmy Wales and was the last stage of content dispute resolution on the English Wikipedia. Mediation was entered into voluntarily by the parties to the dispute and did not result in binding resolutions. The Mediation Committee policy documented how the Mediation Committee, its mediators, and the formal mediation process operated. This policy was maintained by the Committee and was considered an authoritative codification of how Committee matters should be conducted.

After a substantial period of inactivity, the Mediation Committee was shut down by community consensus on 12 November 2018.

Archives[edit]

For a list of declined requests, go to Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Rejected cases.
Previous requests for mediation are indexed below. Please note that mediation often took place on the talk page; the latter box allows those pages to be searched.

Click 'show' to view an index of all archives

Closed mediation cases (accepted requests)

Rejected mediation request pages

The Wikipedia Mediation Committee was set up in January 2004 to assist in resolving disputes between users. It is part of the formal dispute resolution process on Wikipedia. Requests for a mediator to assist in a dispute are made at Requests for Mediation.

If mediation fails, the dispute may be referred to the Mediation Committee's sister committee, the Arbitration Committee for binding resolution. The role of the Mediation Committee is explicitly to try to resolve disputes to the mutual satisfaction of all; it is not simply an intermediate step towards banning or a method of vetting candidates for the Arbitration Committee. Mediation must be an honest attempt on the part of all parties to resolve disputes; parties to mediations should understand that they will be given the opportunity to express any concerns they have, but mediation is not a court hearing, and mediators do not issue binding decisions. The decision to mediate, and to abide by the result of mediation, is voluntary.

The specific ways in which this committee serves the community is continuously developing, as the work proceeds and the needs of the community change.

New MedCom Requests[edit]

Rejected MedCom Requests[edit]

Arbitration Committee[edit]

Arbitration Committee proceedings

Case requests

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

[edit]

Open cases

Case name	Links	Evidence due	Prop. Dec. due
Venezuelan politics	(t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t)	20 Apr 2024	04 May 2024
~~Mzajac~~	(t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t)	—	Case suspended

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

Case name	Closed
Conflict of interest management	13 Apr 2024

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
Amendment request: Conduct in deletion-related editing	none	(orig. case)	30 April 2024

Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

The Arbitration Committee exists to impose binding solutions to Wikipedia disputes. This solution may be anything up to and including a ban from editing Wikipedia for a period of time.

The Arbitration Committee is the last step in the dispute resolution process — it is a last resort to be turned to when all else has failed. Other steps, including discussion between users and, where appropriate, mediation, should be tried first. The Arbitration Committee exists to deal with only the most serious disputes and cases of rule-breaking.

Until the beginning of 2004, Jimbo Wales, the previous head of the Wikimedia Foundation, which governs Wikipedia, dealt with all serious disputes and was the only person with the authority to ban users who were not engaging in simple vandalism (straightforward vandals could be blocked by any administrator). This role has now largely been passed to the Arbitration Committee. Jimbo wrote:

"The Arbitration Committee [...] can impose a solution that I'll consider to be binding, with of course the exception that I reserve the right of executive clemency and indeed even to dissolve the whole thing if it turns out to be a disaster. But I regard that as unlikely, and I plan to do it about as often as the Queen of England dissolves Parliament against their wishes, i.e., basically never, but it is one last safety valve for our values." – January 2004