User talk:SebastianHelm/NVC

NVC Resources
This list is old but still useful, NVC World (linked there) is also aging but still full of great stuff. There's also a bunch of good videos on YouTube, groups and such on Facebook. There is a small but living NVC subreddit. I have not been as plugged in the last ~10 years so there are undoubtedly many newer resources I'm unaware of. One I do know and recommend is The Fearless Heart. Obviously, feel free to refactor, fold, staple, mutilate, etc. this section and add more resources. :-) --John_Abbe (talk) 22:33, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

&mdash; Sebastian 10:43, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you, John! User:Biogeographist posted a similar list in reply to my question at :
 * "In my view, the general ethos of NVC is already expressed in the Wikipedia conduct policies, especially the policy of Civility: see also Essays in a nutshell/Civility. In fact, NVC is already mentioned in one of the essays on civility: Advice for hotheads. And NVC is also mentioned in Pledges (as you already know since you created that essay). Finally, I would note that NVC is not the only conceptual system or model that is relevant to civility on Wikipedia; other equally relevant models can be found in books by William Ury and his colleagues at the Program on Negotiation and by Chris Argyris (creator of the Ladder of Inference), in Bohm dialogue, pragma-dialectics and other dialectical models in argumentation theory, Rogerian argument, critical thinking, communicative rationality, design rationale (which is relevant because all discussion on Wikipedia is about designing an encyclopedia), other approaches to conflict transformation, etc. Biogeographist (talk) 18:25, 24 January 2018 (UTC)"

I'd say NVC has little to do with civility, one of the earliest books about it (before Rosenberg's I think) was Kelly Bryson's Don't Be Nice, Be Real. :-) If I made such a list it would include Focusing (psychotherapy) - and humanistic psychology generally, as both Rosenberg and Focusing's founder Eugene Gendlin were evidently influenced by Carl Rogers (of the Rogerian argument SebastianHelm mentioned). Theory U addressed to the workplace, but at least in outline resembles NVC in going from outer / specific (observations) to the most inner sort of visceral abstractions (in NVC's case explicitly to needs) and then back to specific (strategies & requests). The most pointed commonality with Ury (& Fisher, in Getting to Yes) that I know of is their "positions" being analogous to NVC requests / strategies, and their "interests" being analogous to NVC's needs - more like deep strategies I would say on the spectrum from strategy to need, but often that's enough.

I have a bit of experience with Bohmian dialogue, and both do invite one powerfully to a witness position, albeit in very different ways. But it requires everyone involved to sign up to its rules and play by them. Much of the value of NVC is in what it offers to help us connect with people who are not wanting to connect. If a Wikipedia NVC group ever starts up, please do let me know.John_Abbe (talk) 00:18, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

NVC Training at WikiMania, etc?
If someone wanted to organize an NVC training at a WikiMania or other event I'd be happy to at least help connect them to some likely-interested folks whose NVC chops I respect. It would be pretty cool to have a roundtable on using NVC in Wikipedia with a bunch of people who had just been through a workshop together. --John_Abbe (talk) 22:33, 24 January 2018 (UTC)


 * You mean Wikimania 2018 in Cape Town? That presumably requires traveling there, right? &mdash; Sebastian 10:32, 25 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I meant any WikiMania. There have been smaller, regional ones in the past but I don't know what's upcoming on the calendar. --John_Abbe (talk) 18:57, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Exchanging experiences
The reason why, after 11 years, I feel an urgent need to exchange experiences using NVC with other editors is because I failed miserably: Last week I ended up blocking (something I have always avoided!) a user who insisted on his own interpretation of our guidelines (such as WP:CONDUCT). A neutral admin undid my block, which showed me that I went too far even by Wikipedia's standards, which aren't as peaceful as NVC. I feel like the principal who tried to teach a child "not to hit smaller people" by hitting him.

I tried to correct my mistake later by starting a "Tea room" on my talk page, but I didn't succeed in establishing an open conversation. I would now like to hear from others if they had any success with NVC in a messed up situation like that. &mdash; Sebastian 11:17, 25 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I have not looked at your edit history to examine what happened, but based only on what you have said above, I would point out that being an admin gives an editor special powers that would be easy to abuse. We all make mistakes, and it's a fairly widespread ethical principle that when you see that you have made a mistake (or misdeed), you acknowledge (confess and expose) the mistake, feel remorse for having made the mistake, vow to learn from the mistake and not to repeat it in the future, and take action to remedy the effects of the mistake. It sounds like you have done all that. In the future when you find yourself in a similar disagreement or conflict you may want to refrain from using admin powers (almost pretending as if you didn't have them) and ask another admin to step in and evaluate the situation if necessary. That action would be congruent with what the Wikipedia article on NVC calls the intention of "sharing power", especially "using force minimally and to protect rather than to educate, punish, or get what we want without agreement". Normal Wikipedia editors don't have much choice but to rely on Wikipedia conduct policies and to share power if they want to get any work done; admins, who have more power, may need to make a more conscious intention to share power. Biogeographist (talk) 12:09, 25 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your reply, Biogeographist. I wholeheartedly agree with all you write, except that I don't consider resorting to ask an admin to exert power a use of NVC. (I haven't heard the "sharing power" intention from Rosenberg; this seems to be Kashtan's idea. Unfortunately the reference appears to suffer from link rot.) So, I didn't mean to ask about the use of admin powers, I only mentioned this to show why I feel like the principal. In fact, I would have felt almost the same if I had asked someone else to do the block. It's as if the little child had called the principal in Rosenberg's story; it ends with the same violation of NVC.
 * What I need is advice that applies to anyone editing here: How can one apply NVC at Wikipedia when dealing with people who won't listen? But I don't expect we'll be drowned in responses if the question is more general. So I'd be happy to have reports of just any experience, regardless of how well it matches mine. &mdash; Sebastian 12:36–12:54, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I realize why the notion of "sharing power" by calling in another person to do the dirty work for me makes me angry: I want to fight violence, not just avoid responsibility for it. &mdash; Sebastian 13:13, 25 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I like Miki Kashtan's work, and I've updated the URL where the "sharing power" intention is mentioned. I was not suggesting "asking another admin to exert power" or "doing the dirty work" in your place; I was suggesting asking another admin to consider whether the use of an admin power is justified and appropriate in a situation in which your own judgment may be compromised in some way. There is nothing "violent" about appropriate use of power, and another admin can help you evaluate whether use of a certain power in a given situation is appropriate. If, in the situation that you described above, you had asked another admin to consider whether a block was appropriate and the other admin said no, then the block never would have happened and you would not have felt sorry about inappropriately blocking someone, and the other editor would not have felt angry (or feeling whatever else) about being inappropriately blocked.
 * Requesting advice from another admin (or non-admin editor) is using the "power of the third side" that William Ury described in his book The Third Side: Why We Fight and How We Can Stop (see also his book The Power of a Positive No: How to Say No and Still Get to Yes) and the attitude of "mediator leadership" that Mark Gerzon described in his book Leading Through Conflict: How Successful Leaders Transform Differences Into Opportunities, for example. These ideas are not NVC but they are highly relevant to the situation you related. In the passage that I wrote and that you quoted above, I recommended that Wikipedia editors should be familiar with a wide range of ideas and models beyond NVC; NVC is helpful but does not address all factors in all situations. In particular, building an encyclopedia involves rhetorical and evidentiary issues (addressed in a general way by Core content policies) that are not well addressed by NVC (to my knowledge) but that play a role in most conflicts on Wikipedia.
 * In addition to the intention of "sharing power", another idea from NVC that seems relevant to the situation you described is the idea that "all actions are attempts to meet needs". William Ury and his colleagues at the Program on Negotiation talk about this in terms of "focusing on interests instead of positions". I always ask myself what are the fundamental (often tacit or implicit) "needs" or "interests", as well as the tacit or implicit reasoning, underlying the (explicit) "positions" in a conversation, and I try to direct the conversation toward meeting those (justified) needs or interests. I said "justified" needs or interests because on Wikipedia, needs and interests are evaluated within the context of Wikipedia's mission and policies, and the only needs and interests that are justified on Wikipedia are those that are congruent with Wikipedia's mission and policies. Biogeographist (talk) 13:59, 25 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Thank you, that contains many really helpful insights. Only on the "admin" topic, we're still talking past each other: My concern is just that if I had been the admin asked (the "principal" in Rosenberg's story), the block would have happened. But (as I already indicated above) I would like to keep that out of the discussion and focus on the valuable insight I gained from you instead.
 * I love Getting to Yes (of which I gave a copy to someone with whom I was in a difficult negotiation last year; I don't think he read it, but at least he took it as a sign of good will.), so I will definitely check out The third Side.
 * Maybe I was too purist, almost religiously so, about NVC. I had been impressed by people who, like Gandhi, were fueled by their principles, which helped them grow in difficult situations. (This was why I started this page 11 years ago.) But probably NVC doesn't lend itself for that; it's just a technique that sometimes works. (As William Ury wrote: "Nonviolent Communication is a simple yet powerful methodology for communicating in a way that meets both parties' needs" ) If one doesn't see a way to make it work, searching for one may not be worth one's while; this is probably a lesson I should take from my recent experience. Rosenberg loves to writes about his successes, but I forgot that he didn't claim that it always works. (Now I remember an event some ten years ago, when both I and an environmental activist had questions about the application of NVC in our respective areas that he evaded.)
 * I have to leave now, but I will spend more time for your good advice later. &mdash; Sebastian 15:52, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * William Ury might have added to his recommendation quoted above: "... but one still needs a BATNA", which is what I didn't have. I'll check out your recommendations, as I'm sure they offer some. &mdash; Sebastian 15:54, 25 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your response; I enjoyed a lot of your points, e.g. "... but one still needs a BATNA"!
 * You said: "I had been impressed by people who, like Gandhi, were fueled by their principles, which helped them grow in difficult situations." It's true that principles can help people grow in difficult situations, and their principles also grow in difficult situations: developing people and developing principles. I have found that one of the strengths of argumentation theory is that it provides many tools for analyzing and developing principles; the Handbook of Argumentation Theory (by Frans H. van Eemeren et al., 2014) is a good overview, but it may be "too much information" for a discussion of conflict resolution on Wikipedia!
 * I know you want to leave the admin topic, but first I will point out that you have highlighted a real problem: "if I had been the admin asked (the 'principal' in Rosenberg's story), the block would have happened". As I see it, the problem here is: How do you guarantee that the third party who is serving as mediator or arbitrator is able to determine what action is justified and appropriate in the situation? I think part of the solution to this problem may be in a phrase that you used in your first paragraph of this section (emphasis added): "A neutral admin undid my block..." Although neutrality is an ideal that may never be fully reached, it is nevertheless a key ideal, so to activate the "power of the third side" I need to seek someone who appears capable and willing to evaluate the situation in a neutral way, minimizing bias. The person has to be seen as neutral by all parties, and the person has to have the skills to evaluate the situation neutrally. (Then, even if the outcome is the outcome that I wanted, at least I and the other party and other observers can feel it was a fair outcome.) Perhaps it would be helpful to have (if it does not already exist) a set of criteria that admins can use to evaluate how closely they and others are realizing an ideal of neutrality. There could be some kind of rating system with which admins rate each other on these criteria, similar to the Martindale-Hubbell AV peer review ratings for attorneys. Biogeographist (talk) 18:39, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, actually, it all started with me being the "power of the third side". User A was making fun of user B. When I saw that, I asked user A to change his post, and he refused, saying that I just had no sense of humor. &mdash; Sebastian 21:57, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I should add to what I said about neutrality in the last paragraph that it's important not to have a simplistic conception of neutrality. I won't elaborate on this here since Bernard Mayer has already addressed it well in his book Beyond Neutrality: Confronting the Crisis in Conflict Resolution (a book endorsed by people like William Ury and John Paul Lederach). One of my favorite quotes from that book is that "genuine dialogue is not possible if we are not willing to engage in argumentation about our most important issues". Biogeographist (talk) 19:07, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * This sounds very interesting, too! Thanks, Biogeographist. So much to read, so little time! &mdash; Sebastian 21:57, 25 January 2018 (UTC)