User:Xavexgoem/mediation

Ground rules
These rules are uncontentious when discussion is proceeding smoothly, so much so that they hardly need stating. In most disputes requiring mediation, usually none of these are followed.

Rule 1
"Assume good faith. If you don't believe someone is acting in good faith, tell me why so we can work it out. If you treat someone disrespectfully, I will assume that you don't trust the other editor and I will ask for reasons why. I am allowed to point out instances where the charges leveled against that other editor could be leveled against you.  You may feel that my charges are unfair, and they probably are."

Rule 2
"Do not link to project-space policies and guidelines. Everyone knows what they are and why they're important. If you feel something is not neutral, for instance, say why it's not neutral, without reference to the policy."

Rule 3
"Please do not edit the section of the article that's in dispute. If someone outside this mediation changes it to a version that you don't agree with, do not revert the edit. By definition, a revert restores an article to its consensus version. Mediation is proof of lack of consensus. A reversion implies that your version is consensus, and therefore mediation is pointless."

Rule 2 (no linking)

 * There is a certain contemptuousness to linking to WP:ANYTHING. It can be implied or inferred that the other editor does not know policy or widely-accepted guidelines.
 * Constantly linking to a policy or guideline is proof that it's being interpreted differently between editors. It is important that editors express their understanding of a policy, so that differences in interpretation can be cleared up.