User talk:MattB2

Mediation
I'd be happy to chat with you a bit. Questions? There is a limit to the time I can spend on this but am happy to help. Reply here. --Nick Y. 17:15, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Same here, Matt. Reply on my talk page if you don't mind. Thanks -- BrownHornet21 05:01, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

BrownHornet21's Response
Hi Matt,

Here goes:

Background

1) How long have you been mediating for Wikipedia?
 * Since June of 2006.

2) Were you given any specific training to be a mediator for Wikipedia?
 * None.

3) Do you have any other experience of mediation/dispute resolution (if so, what is it and for how long)?
 * Yes, as an attorney I've participated in a lot of mediations, probably about more than 75 over the past 8 years.

General

1) What factors do you find makes a dispute particularly difficult to mediate?
 * On Wikipedia, the civility of the parties (i.e., lack thereof) make it difficult to mediate. Generally there's a lot of name calling and accusations. If you can calm them down, then things go a lot smoother.
 * There is a general misunderstanding of what mediation's for on Wikipedia, in my opinion. Many folks think that the mediator is a judge, who has the power to decide and implement the "winning party's" viewpoint.  It doesn't quite work that way.  The mediator has zero authority to do anything, and is just a neutral third-party to help reach a compromise.
 * On Wikipedia, sometimes the subject matter (e.g., religion, politics, creationism) is something that is not quite suitable for mediation. Debates over these things have been raging for decades, centuries, or even thousands of years. If a mediator actually resolves a bona fide dispute over these things, he or she deserves a Nobel Peace Prize.
 * On Wikipedia, the mediation process is often invoked due to one person's failure to follow Wikipedia's established guidelines and procedures.  Sometimes one can talk some sense into the individual, and it turns out to be just a misunderstanding.  Other times the person just disagrees with the established guideline and just does things their own way.
 * In real life, a weak mediator will doom the process. A mediator generaly must be assertive and creative with both parties to reach a resolution.  That doesn't mean he or she yells at them or twists their arm, but does an effective job of expressing the strengths and weaknesses of their positions.

2) What makes a good mediator - e.g skills, attitude?
 * Both on Wikipedia and IRL - being a good listener, assertive, friendly, and creative.

3) What difficulties are posed by mediating through technology?
 * IRL, mediators consider it essential that the parties meet face to face and mediate and a "neutral" site, e.g., the mediator's office. People are much more likely to become entrenched when they are not actually there, but rather in their home/office just saying "no" to whatever solution the mediator proposes.  You can't get around that on Wikipedia.  But Wikipedia disputes don't have anywhere near the high stakes of IRL mediation.  Wikipedia disputes generally involve differences of opinion on editing content, styles, etc.  IRL disputes generally involve money - lots of money.

4) In what way does technology help you mediate?
 * Ease of communication, ease of finding someone to mediate the dispute.

Let me know if you have any follow-up. Hope this helps! BrownHornet21 20:13, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Matt,

Differences/similarities between the environments:

1) Are there any particular techniques or approaches that you find work well in both real life and wikipedia? If so, why do you think this is?
 * Yes, the Mediator's Proposal: If parties reach an impasse, the mediator may present a Mediator's Proposal for settlement. The usual practice is for the mediator to present this proposal to the parties at the same time, and then require that they separately advise the mediator within a specified time of whether or not they will accept the proposal.  If all parties accept it, the case is deemed settled on those terms.  If less than all the parties accept the proposal, the mediator simply advises that the Proposal was not unanimously accepted, without disclosing whether any party accepted it.  I don't know why, but it psychologically creates an incentive to say "yes," if nothing else just to see what the other side said.

2) Conversely, are there techniques/approaches that you are more comfortable using in one of the environments than the other? and again, why do you think this is?
 * Can't really think of any.

3) You mention that a weak mediator might 'doom the process'. IRL, how does a mediator come across as 'strong' (or at least 'not weak') and how might this be limited/enabled by the Wikipedia environment?

- Not afraid to tell parties they are being unrealistic. (Neither.)
 * Strong mediator characteristics (and whether Wikipedia limits or enables them):

- Checking their own ego/emotions, not letting the emotions of the parties derail things. (Much easier to do this online than when folks are screaming at you in person!)

- Emphasis on the objectives the parties hope to accomplish. (Neither.)

- Be assertive. (Depends - some people are more assertive in print, others in real life.)

- Never giving up on the mediation, coming up with creative solutions, and ones that are "win-win" for both sides. (Somewhat enabled, as Wikipedia mediations give one lots of time to think of creative solutions.)

- Avoid taking sides. (Believe it or not, I find this more difficult on Wikipedia, because some of the mediations I've done involve one side just being unreasonable, and trying to talk the unreasonable one down from the tree can perhaps come across as ganging up on him or her.)

That's all I can think of right now. Might add a few more a little later. Hope this helps! Cheers BrownHornet21 03:25, 30 January 2007 (UTC) -

Re: Thank you
No problem, and please don't hesitate to contact me if you have any questions. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note? ) 03:02, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Help with research
Hello Essjay,

I wondered if you were still willing to help with some research. I've a few questions about the Wikipedia mediaiton process that you might be able to answer. If you'd still like to take part, please let me know.

Many thanks

Matt MattB2 08:36, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Sure; I'm heading to bed at the moment, as it's 12:40AM and I have to be in a meeting at 9AM, but if you'd like to post some questions here or email me, I'd be happy to arrange everything. Essjay   ( Talk )  08:38, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Excellent. I've just two questions for you (answer as little or as much as you like), and then, depending on you response, I might have a couple of follow-up ones for you.
 * 1) What do you think makes a dispute suitable for mediation?
 * 2) What makes a good mediator?
 * Many thanks


 * Matt
 * MattB2 13:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Matt:


 * Just a transparency note here to say that I'm working on answers to these (I'm currently in California at a Wikia staff meeting, so I'm not getting lots of time to edit) and I will post them to you as soon as I can. Would you prefer answers here, or by email? Essjay   ( Talk )  03:12, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Mediation Research
You left a message on my talk page asking about my willingness to talk to you about mediation. If you are still interested, I would be happy to answer any questions that might help your research. I can be reached here (on Wiki) or via email from my userpage. I work M-F 9-5 (GMT -5 hrs). →Bobby ← 14:57, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I got the same message. Please feel free to email me if you'd like. You may wish to note that while I've done mediation on a number of cases, most of my experience was administrative work rather than direct mediation. ~Kylu ( u | t )  22:27, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Same here. Drop me an e-mail if you want to talk. &mdash;Sean Whitton / 15:45, 26 July 2007 (UTC)