The Signpost

Discussion report

Mediation Committee and proposed deletion reform

Mediation Committee shutdown proposed

Logo of the Mediation Committee, depicting the Wikipedia globe logo within a laurel
No more mediators?

Wikipedia's Mediation Committee (MedCom) has heard five cases in the last three years (see Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Tasks), leading some users to question its usefulness. Eliminating the function has thus been proposed in a Request for Comment (RfC) at "Village pump (proposals) § Close MedCom?" (permanent link). Reasons cited by the proposer include:

  • very few cases are submitted, let alone successful;
  • the requirement that the parties go through other methods of dispute resolution first, i.e. mediation is intended to be the last resort for content disputes;
  • the voluntary nature of mediation (all parties have to agree to it and decisions are non-binding) further reduces its effectiveness;
  • MedCom's sole purpose, content dispute resolution, has been supplanted by other processes; and,
  • basically one user (the chairperson) is actively working on the committee.

Supporters of closing MedCom have said that it is largely inactive, ineffective, and inefficient, as well as overly bureaucratic. On the other hand, one of the opposers, TransporterMan (who chairs the committee), argues that MedCom still plays in important part, though less frequently today than in years past, because it is better equipped to deal with complex cases that take a long time. This argument has been cited by other opposers of the proposal. As of publication, there are currently about 33 votes in favor and 11 against with a few neutrals. — P

Proposed deletion of proposed deletions (PROD)

Reforms to proposed deletion (PROD), one of which is the elimination of the process, have been proposed in a five-part RfC on the Village Pump (policy) at "RfC: Proposed deletion policy" (permanent link). Two parts have been closed already while the rest is now overdue for closure. — B, K

In brief

+ Add a comment

Discuss this story

These comments are automatically transcluded from this article's talk page. To follow comments, add the page to your watchlist. If your comment has not appeared here, you can try purging the cache.
  • Thanks for the note about the PROD discussions, of which I was not aware until now. Seems the biggest non-snowball issue is the questions about whether to notify or not to notify, to which I say there should just be one easy answer... someone should just write a bot to take care of the notifications for everyone. – wbm1058 (talk) 21:00, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Having any topic the subject of "a five-part RfC" strikes at the very heart of what's wrong with Wikipedia: the very laudable goal of being completely transparent and consensus-driven results in pages and pages of text that simply cannot be read and considered in full by any of the participants, much less the sorry sod who has to close the discussion. Wikipedia should not be available only to pensioned retirees.--~TPW 01:38, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I may have been the first editor to recommend the abolishment of Medcom, about a year or two ago. Interesting, that the community has picked up on the topic. GoodDay (talk) 16:59, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • After reading this article I'm not sure if I had forgotten Medcom existed, or was never aware of its existence to begin with. -Indy beetle (talk) 05:50, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

















Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2018-10-28/Discussion_report