User:Xavexgoem/advice

'Feel free to add to this page - in no way should anything here be construed as the opinions of mediators as a whole. This page amounts to an infodump.'


 * Note - this is a frank discussion. If we're at all concerned about the efficacy of our dispute resolution processes, we need to be honest with ourselves, and allow for expediency in register. This entire text assumes - in fact, insists - that you know the basic ins and outs of the big three content policies and the subtleties and obviousities behind ignore all rules. No effort will be made to link to these policies, or any other process (BRD, CCC, etc). If you don't know those acronyms, look them up!


 * Any references to "me" in this text are possibly Xavexgoem's, but maybe not; it shouldn't matter. If you disagree with something, please say so in discussion. Otherwise, add your own text. You can use "I", "me", your own username, or whatever. This page should reflect the consensus of all who edit it.

There are no rules for mediation. There is no process that always works; if there were, we'd be using it.

It's precisely because of this ambiguity that explaining our methods is important; it demystifies to non-mediators how to go about the rather difficult task of solving disputes as a neutral third party.

This is my advice, and my advice only. When you begin mediating between parties, three things need to happen from the outset:


 * 1) Get them to agree on anything at all. Like that they need mediation, for instance.
 * 2) Gain initiative. Getting them to agree gains you a bit of initiative already. I use this during the info-gathering phase, where I'm still confused about all the subtleties and contexts. My advice is to have a certain stolidity in your conduct.
 * 3) Frame the dispute. It is exceptionally difficult to help editors if everyone is on a separate page. Having gained some mediatorial capital, you are in the position to set the rules. Whether you frame the dispute on your own terms, or if you're copying another editors explanation of the problem, you at least need to allow yourself the power of controlling the structure of the conversation.

After that, you're essentially in control of the discussion. How much control you have ebbs and flows, and that is a good thing. The mere process of losing and regaining control aids everyone in getting a dispute solved; it's proof, after all, that you're active in the discussion. Mediators need to flow like water. If you haven't read the Tao Te Ching, I highly recommend it. It's short and gives you some good advice (try to find a more contemporary translation if you can; it can seem a bit threatening otherwise, like any old book).


 * Quick initiative gainers

Step #2 is the most important, at least to me. This tactic - I don't have a name for it, but "sign or shut up" just comes to mind (har har) - this tactic works well in nationalist disputes where everyone is at each others throats. It works like this:
 * Act frustrated at the inability of the editors to remain civil (this isn't hard, because you probably are frustrated)
 * Put your foot down. Be unequivocal. Say that this aggression will not stand, and would you please sign here and bind yourself to it.
 * Everyone signs - they can't not, because that's proof of bad faith. You've just gained a good amount of initiative.

Of course, there's no need to call it binding. And on the off-chance that someone refuses to sign... well, they're on their own. You can effectively mediate a discussion without them, although you'll want to play that angle so that if an AN/I discussion comes up, it'll appear that you - the mediator, of all people - are a little frustrated. Don't mix yourself up with AN/I disputes relevant to your case if you can at all help it.

Another initiative gainer - and sometimes mediation ender (three cases I've mediated went into full stall after I did this) - is to appeal to editorness. It's almost axiomatic that abstractions above "editor" cause problems: we have "nationalists", "fringe editors", and all sorts of irrelevances like ethnicity, nationality, religion, etc. This is another case where people can't go "no, this stuff does matter" without losing initiative on their part. I recommend this after you have some initiative already. Again, sometimes this will stall a case on the talk page because nobody feels up to refuting it, although they probably really want to. Bear in mind that many people involved in disputes are there for the drama.


 * On straw men

There is a difference between how editors react to straw-men and how mediators react to straw-men. Editors attack straw men because if provides bait for pointless reprisal; when an editor attacks straw men from something a mediator said, however, they have been baited. We yield to all tactics, and maneuver around them.


 * On stalled cases

For informal mediation (Medcab and 3O, particularly), a stalled case isn't a bad thing, per se. Mediators aren't out to end grievances, although of course it's good when they can. Rather, mediators end content disputes. If no-one is complaining, there's no dispute. See WP:SILENCE, and WikiNow at Meatball Wiki

(There may be a way to work an angle when a case is practically stalled, as in: the content end isn't going anywhere, but the conduct end is, and the two are being conflated. See if there's a way to argue that nothing is being accomplished and see what happens. That'll be tricky, because prying someone away from their own drama can seem impossible)


 * Misc.


 * Everything is nicer with a smiley face :-)
 * Do not bring up the past if you can help it. It's easily manipulated, and it's too easy to misread to begin with.


 * 4 questions:

Each participant should ideally know the answers to the following 4 questions. If they were able to answer all 4, they could mediate themselves. But guess what? :-P


 * 1) A personal reason why they are in support of the action you are taking
 * 2) What would theoretically need to be said or done to make them reverse that position
 * 3) A reason why they think each other participant in the discussion (will) support them (ie, why is their position likely to gain consensus)
 * 4) What would need to be said or done to change the position of each other participant.

This is necessary, but not sufficient, at least this will clear the fog of war. Of course, you, as a mediator or faciliator, may want to do your own research to find the answer. At the point you will be the one eyed person in the valley of the blind.