https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Rebooted_discussion
This whole topic is going hot on heave on his talk page, starting with
his proposal which I mention in my response on the proposalbelow:
What if it was far more limited: /WMF hires mediators to do
mediation and to train and monitor volunteer mediators. Mediation
would be voluntary but it is likely Admins and Arbitrators would not
look well on those who refused to engage in mediation or obviously
did not take it seriously once they agreed to it./
I was in one mediation around 2007-8 on a really controversial
topic. The mediator was inexperienced and had to start over at one
point; but it still was extremely effective and greatly diminished
edit warring among a few editors over several articles. However
after that I couldn't find mediators for a one or two issues that
had been accepted for mediation because no moderators were
available, so I didn't try again for a few years. When I did four
people wanted it; two refused on questionable grounds. The issue
went to arbitration but Arbitrators didn't take the mediation issue
seriously, perhaps because it was known that there aren't many
mediators or they aren't effective.
Of course it's been ignored, but there are some thoughtful comments
there. And a lot of drama with a couple guys who defend their right to
be "uncivil" quitting.
While I was on my best behavior with constructive comments throughout, I
did have to say at one point that those who support incivility should at
least not have a double standard against women being equally uncivil.
"What good for the goose is good for the gander."
Later my roommate explained to me the gander is the MALE not the
female! So it took me 66 years to figure it out. Maybe others are
similarly confused?? I guess from now on just to make myself perfectly
clear I'll say "Whats good for the male gander is good for the female
goose."
Ai, yi, yi!!
CM