Wikipedia talk:Mediation/Archive 1

Survey: Merge with Wikipedia:What is mediation?

Yes --172.193.164.242 23:44, 2 August 2005 (UTC) Yes --Smack (talk) 02:32, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Extend process to other editorial decisions

Eventually, I'd like to see such a process extended to other editorial decisions. The long ugly flamewar at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers), for example, might have succumbed to mediation or arbitration. Martin 23:22, 7 Oct 2003 (UTC)

There is also an anonymous someone who has started a role account called User:Mediator (it is definitely not me!). The idea seems to be to have someone who acts like some kind of official office that puts people on notice that they should "mediate" their disputes with the Wikipedia community. Someone will be an actual Mediator who does these mediations (the role may be transfered between uses by some yet, undefined process). So actually it appears that this Mediator has some kind of prosecutorial role. The Mediator has taken positions on policies (like a District Attorney) might do. See my comments on the Mediator user talk page about what a mediator should be and how User:Mediator does not fulfil that role. — Alex756 19:50, 11 Oct 2003 (UTC)

---

sorry, it is all in very bad english. I meant it initially for 168, when he said he did not understand the need for confidentiality. I do not know if that reflect everyone opinion on the matter. If not, just remove it, and put it on my user page please. But I took time to write it and did not want it entirely lost.

I did some copyediting and I think the English is fine now -- and the information is very clear and important. I hope it can stay. -- BCorr ¤ Брайен 04:12, Mar 3, 2004 (UTC)

---

Benefit of the doubt

Every mediator sets their own detailed policy regarding benefit of the doubt. They owe every user a common and fair process, but they do not necessarily have to believe every assertion or accusation made by every user, nor put up with infinite harangue from those who make up facts as they go. Here are some important guidelines:

• Every assertion or accusation must be accompanied by a direct link to the ACTUAL VERSION OF THE PAGE WHERE IT WAS MADE - no other evidence should be answered by the mediator All mediation tactics should rely as much as possible on Wikipedia:accountability foundations.

• Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, is, a jurisdiction. The objective here is not vague and universal fairness - it is an encyclopedia, and that implies rules that no mediator can ignore.

• If some bias is already over-represented, the mediator may invite a member advocate to take the position of an under-represented group, to help separate issues between groups (like a political dispute or identity dispute) from those that apply between individuals. If there is only one scholar in Thai history at Wikipedia, that person deserves a lot more benefit of the doubt than those who make a hobby out of calling for bans on every person who disagrees with them.

• A sysop who exercises their powers before calling in the mediator should have less benefit of the doubt than one who waits for a ruling or intervention patiently.

• Those who call for bans on others should have less benefit of the doubt than those who remain willing to work with them.

For fairness, any systemic bias of the mediator must be published and subject to consensus. If for instance the mediator believes there are too many advocates of say American Exceptionalism and thus more US POV, s/he must make that statement explicitly so that erring in favour of those opposing that view can be discussed.

Benefit of the doubt is not "neutral" except in the process sense, and must favour contributors who work within encyclopedic guidelines, over those who stress or seek to change them. Also, the mediator only gets involved when there is dispute about what "neutral" means in a given instance. In an identity dispute for instance, some will consider a group's definition or name (e.g. "Islamists") to be neutral, others might consider it insulting or prejudicial. Such cases are common.

Mediation strategies

A current mediation policy is to discuss strategy here openly and avoid freezing it into best practices yet. It is simply not a mature enough role yet for that to happen.

Elements of the incumbent mediation strategy

• Engage users in conflict only where they can be requested to do something seemingly within their own qualifications. Avoid engaging those who are already a subject of Wikipedia:blocking policy attention, which is another process.

• Encourage a Wikipedia:WikiProject to focus on mediation-related issues like conflict resolution, transformative justice, mindful mediation, consensus democracy and other topics. Keep these on the same watchlist as the current day to day issues requiring mediator attention, so theory and practice never get too far out of step.

• Mock authoritarian attitudes, especially from those proven incompetent. Make sure it costs something to engage the mediators with trivia or raise concerns relevant only to the incumbent.

• Rely only on Wikipedia:itself to guide decisions about the role of the mediator, including especially Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not.

Mediation tactics

A current policy is to record tactics that work as part of its best practices:

• When a user in conflict feels they are part of a persecuted or under-represented group, suggest that they write a biography of some specific prominent person, or heroic event, associated with that group or nation.

• When someone is overly focused on classifying or using some characterization from a particular scientific theory, ask them to include links to a broader article on more than just that one theory, and to attribute the narrower view to the experts who apply that theory. Coax them to write a separate article on that theory if it does not already exist.

• Create a Wikipedia:WikiProject to focus on concerns that more than one user seems to share, to assure them that they are being heard. Encourage them both to join it, rather than focus on fighting those who oppose them.

• Make jokes.

• Encourage self-examination, self-critique and self-assessment.

• Distract.

• If comments are in very poor English, add this:

Unfortunately, this comment is not in English. The Simple English Wikipedia may be a better place to learn the language. In the meantime, please trust the judgement of the others who have commented on your work. They know English usage very well. Thanks.

---

I disagree with anything User:JRR Trollkien suggests above becoming mediation policy. Suggesting things like people go to simple: because they have poor English is ridiculous and insulting. Comments like "Every assertion or accusation must be accompanied by a direct link..." relate to arbitration, not mediation. There is no need to insist on such things in mediation. If a mediator feels links will help, they can ask for them, but as a voluntary process, unlike arbitration, there should be no requirement for anyone involved to be forced to do anything, including providing such links. "blah blah one who waits for a ruling" - mediators don't make rulings, so that whole section is, again, irrelevant. The rest is so far removed from the goals of mediation, I don't believe it is even worth commenting on. Angela. 23:50, Apr 27, 2004 (UTC)

---

"When a user in conflict feels they are part of a persecuted or under-represented group, suggest that they write a biography of some specific prominent person, or heroic event, associated with that group or nation."

How would one actually deal with persecution, as opposed to "perceived persecution"? Hyacinth 20:44, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

---

There were two sets of comments that I've removed from the article. I'm including the comments here as well as the sections they are about (which are still in the article) for context:

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

The first step that should be undertaken to resolve all disputes is to put such individuals who face such disputes to the review of a mediator. Any user or group of users may request mediation for a dispute. If a group the group should pick one person to represent them. That person should contact the Wikipedia:Mediation Committee. That committee will appoint someone to act as a mediator. That mediator will inform the other party that mediation has been requested. See also: meta:mediation.

why could not it be the disputants choosing a mediator, perhaps naming three, in an attempt that one is agreed by both ? Anthere

I agree - but the mediator must also agree to the choice of course. The mediator might feel they are unable to mediate if they have strong views on the subject under discussion for example. sannse

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Steps

1. Articles are reverted to their pre-dispute contents and are closed to any editing while mediation proceeds. Boilerplate text is placed at the top of the article and the page is protected.
2. Mediators seek common ground among the disputants and try to clear up misunderstandings.
3. Mediators make a special effort to consider the merits of the question involved without regard to the background or editing history of the disputants.
4. Mediators set the pace to balance the benefits of "cooling off" with the goal of reasonably rapid closure. Most mediation efforts should be completed in a matter of 3-10 days.
5. Mediators may propose solutions, which may include specific article text.
6. The mediator may update the article with any changes that both disputants accept.
7. When consensus is reached, the fact of article mediation and the agreement reached is documented on the article's talk page. Once disputants make an agreement, they are expected to follow it.
8. The article is reopened to editing once mediation is complete.

imho, this is far too much focusing on conflict over facts, and not enough on conflict over persons. Part of the work of a mediator would be also to try to help personality conflicts to achieve a reasonable agreement. It is also to try to reach an agreement with an editor opposed the a representant of the whole community. Hence, mediation should not on the contrary, try to disregard the background of personal history.

another point, I do not think setting date rules is really a good idea. Peace may take time to come, let's wait the time necessary to reach a solution

why could the mediator update the article ? If the disputants agree on a specific point, they could update it themselves perhaps ? Anthere

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Thanks, BCorr|Брайен 21:07, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Group representatives

I've edited the disputant section to clarify the actual process used by the Committee; while the page has indicated that a single representative must be used to communicate, this is not how mediations have been conducted. Mediation is by definition a fairly elastic process, and there is no reason to have a hard standard like this; where all parties can be involved successfully, they should be. I have left the option of a representative, and inserted the option for the mediator to require a representative if multi-person mediation is becoming disruptive. Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 08:52, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

User disputes that do not revolve around articles

The header says it all. Is this the right venue for ths, or where should I go otherwise? --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:05, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Ayyavazhi

The articles related to Ayyavazhi, a religion in South India has a number of articles here in wiki. The problem is that it has no official recognition. But it functions autonomously. All these were cited with University papers in Wikipedia article. But unfortunately, many of them are not found online. But found offline. Three districts are declared as a Government holiday for a festival of this religion. Officially, this is an indirect proof for the presence of the religion. Taking this lack of online sources as reason, Ayyavazhi related articles and portal are supposed to be deleted. Please help. - Paul 01:44, 16 November 2006 (UTC)