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