User:CanaryInACoalmine

I mediate. My goal is to calm down heated arguments. I express no substantive opinions on debates I attempt to mediate. I like to learn about different perspectives, and watching arguments is the fastest way to do this. Perhaps my goal is unattainable, but I would like to help editors to overcome their differences and collaborate to produce widely-endorsed articles.

I have learned the value of these principles in particular:
 * Self-restraint - if an argument is getting hot, back off. Don't say anything with a hot head.  You may change your mind later and live to regret what you said.  You can always make a point more strongly, but back-pedalling is rarely a human trait.  Save your best ammunition for later.  Don't play all your cards at once.  Keep your Ego in check, even if you feel you are right, you have been wronged or your opponent is a "moron".  This is not a religiously-inspired view, but one based on the pursuit of Personal Effectiveness, Efficacy and Efficiency (see [[Effectiveness for distinction).
 * If you are involved in an edit-war, try to disengage and make light. A bit of humour goes a long way in defusing a situation, especially if it is not at the expense of your adversary.
 * Never write something about someone that you wouldn't want to read about yourself. Wikipedia is not about point-scoring or pushing agendas; and the best victories are bloodless.
 * We do not (yet) know how the public psyche perceives Wikipedia - and maybe never will. It's best therefore to exercise caution on contentious subjects.  Treat Wikipedia as powerful and authoritative, just in case it is.
 * Subjectivity versus Objectivity - Even logic itself can be considered empirical so bear this in mind. Our subjectivity filters our take on reality more than we realise.
 * The less you shout and edit-war, the more favorably other Wikipedians will look upon you. Since the mind is associative, people will associate your good behaviour with respecting your perspective, even if it has been deleted or edit-warred out.  Edit-warring is the fastest way to alienate not just other editors, but readers too.  Try to build consent rather than breeding hostility.  One of the greatest things that Wikipedia exhorts us to achieve is to learn to work with anyone; this is a great life skill.
 * Try to engender Goodwill. It's rare that an adversary not respond well.  In the rare case that this does not work, invite other editors to contribute.  Give thanks to your opponent for airing their view.
 * Mediate incrementally. If a call-to-order doesn't work, explain the mediation path you will take.  Go gradually, first unofficially with Mediation cabal; then with Mediation and, if all else fails, Arbitration.
 * We are all learners here. By its very nature, Wikipedia will continue to evolve.  So even if instanteneously we were to attain a perfect understanding and knowledge of Wikipedia, it would immediately begin to be imperfect thereafter.  In reality, Wikipedia is just too big and complex for any one of us to know everything there is to know about how to be a good Wikipedian.  Therefore we all rely on each other.  And it is therefore of paramount importance that we are ably to rely upon each-other's goodwill.  Bear this in mind not just if you find yourself being challenged by a fellow Wikipedian, but also if you challenge a Wikipedian and get an answer you didn't expect.  'That's the moment at which you learn.'  We can not just have such epiphanies ourselves, we can also watch and help others experience them too.

I wrote the following contribution in my first foray into mediation; it serves pretty well as a Manifesto:

"Canary in a Coalmine" - by The Police

First to fall over when the atmosphere is less than perfect Your sensibilities are shaken by the slightest defect You live you life like a canary in a coalmine You get so dizzy even walking in a straight line

You say you want to spend the winter in firenza Youre so afraid to catch a dose of influenza You live your life like a canary in a coalmine You get so dizzy even walking in a straight line

Canary in a coalmine

Now if I tell you that you suffer from delusions You pay your analyst to reach the same conclusions You live your life like a canary in a coalmine You get so dizzy even walking in a straight line

Canary in a coalmine

First to fall over when the atmosphere is less than perfect Your sensibilities are shaken by the slightest defect You live your life like a canary in a coalmine You get so dizzy even walking in a straight line

Canary in a coalmine