Wikipedia:Mediation
From Free net encyclopedia
| Revision as of 00:41, 21 March 2006 Calair (Talk | contribs) the the ← Previous diff |
Current revision Calair (Talk | contribs) the the |
Current revision
Image:Blue morpho butterfly.jpg{{{1{{{1|}}}|
The basic philosophy of Wikipedia is to reach a consensus in decision-making; this allows for the creation and maintenance of a stable knowledge base.
In line with these principles, a system of mediation has been set up. This system is meant to resolve disputes, and resolve issues of users who have repeatedly violated Wikipedia's policies, most specifically Wikipedia's policies of etiquette towards other users as stated at Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines and Wikipedia:Wikiquette.
Mediation requests are filed at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation, and you can also contact the Mediation Cabal for assistance. Template:Dispute-resolution
Contents |
What is mediation?
Mediation is the activity in which a neutral third party, the mediator, assists two or more parties in order to help them achieve an agreement, with concrete effects, on a matter of common interest.
The common aspects of mediation are:
- a difference of positions between the respective parties;
- the parties want to find a positive solution to their problem and to accept a discussion about respective interests and objectives;
- the intention of achieving a positive result through the help of a third person, usually independent, neutral and in no connection with any of the involved parties;
- the intention of achieving a steady result, preferably a long-lasting agreement.
The ordinary form of a mediated agreement is the consensus of the parties on a proposal that has been developed by the mediator. The acceptance of a mediation does not necessarily include for the parties the obligation to conclude the agreements that the mediator will propose.
Mediation has no formal methods, although some common elements are usually found:
- Clarification of the respective interests and objectives
- Conversion of respective subjective evaluations into more objective values
- Representation to the parties of a collection of possible solutions
- Translation of the result of discussions into a draft of agreement (perhaps in written form)
- Formalisation of the agreement.
Obviously, due to the particular character of this activity, each mediator can use a method of his own, which might be very different from the above scheme, but however contains the main aspects of the process. The role of mediator is less controversial than the role of arbitrator, if only because a mediator may only suggest, rather than impose, a contract.
The best mediation is the one protecting both content and community. It aims at working with the users in conflict to incorporate the information or viewpoints of both, while ensuring that enough peace is restored between the two of them so they are likely to amicably work out their disagreements themselves next time.
- Mediation is intended to achieve a way for people to keep working happily together and build better articles, while themselves growing from the mutual exchange.
- It doesn't need to produce mutual amity between the disputants, though more tolerance and respect is welcome.
- It is not the purpose of the mediation framework to make policy decisions. If the conflict is over something not covered by current policy, the matter should be returned to the wikipedia community as a whole.
Wikipedia mediators are permitted to use their own best judgement to recommend a solution to the disputants, that is in the best interests of the project, particularly where the position of one disputant is unreasonable, fringe, or POV.
What is a mediator?
Quotes:
"To be a good mediator you must be a good listener."
"You have to listen to not only what is being said, but what is not said -- which is often more important than what they say."
— Kofi Annan: Center of the Storm, documentary film, by David Grubin, 2003.
Article:
Seven Guidelines For Handling Conflicts Constructively by Thomas Jordan
DVD:
Law Commission of Canada Community Mediation: Two Real Life Experiences by Stéphane Drolet, National Film Board of Canada, 2003
What mediators are not
- Mediators are not Emissaries. It is not the job of mediators to pass messages between individuals who are not able to communicate. Mediators work to establish the trust and common ground to allow communication to happen.
- Mediators are not Private Investigators. Mediators do not "work for you," nor will they work to build a case against someone or research the facts in an article. Mediators will examine the facts surrounding the dispute in an attempt to understand what each party is looking for and to determine what may end the dispute.
- Mediators are not Psychologists or Social workers. Mediators will work with both parties, and therefore cannot counsel or give advice to either party involved in the dispute.
- Mediators are not Advocates. Mediators will not take sides or promote one person's point of view or request over those of another person. If you want a person to do that, request an advocate at the Association of Members' Advocates page.
- Mediators are not Security Guards. Mediators are not there to protect an article or talk pages and will not watch for improper behavior or violations of rules or guidelines. Nor will they report any incidents or document what happened in an incident report.
People involved in Wikipedia mediation
Mediators
Mediators are part of the Wikipedia:Mediation Committee, and are experienced and trusted Wikipedians.
A mediator is first of all a facilitator. Their job is to facilitate communication between users, especially during disputes. Of course, anyone can mediate between anyone else, that will not change.
Mediators may not always follow the traditional role model of mediation. In all cases they strive to achieve conciliation through negotiation. Mediators listen to both sides, they try to help one put oneself in the other's position. Mediators try to resolve differences in a mutually agreeable manner. Mediators avoid procedure, they use and set ground rules so meaningful discussions take place; they try to get the parties to listen to each other.
Disputants
- Mediation can only occur between two parties, which may consist of a single disputant, or a cohesive group of disputants in common cause. If there are more than two parties mediation can proceed only if the dispute can be reframed as a number of independent and separately mediated disputes between two parties.
- Any disputant may refuse or withdraw from the mediation process at will, though this is considered bad form.
- In common cause a group of disputant users can, in consensus, choose to dispute through mediation with a single disputant or another disputant group.
- Disputant groups may choose a representative from amongst them who may consult with the group during the process. It is helpful to have a single voice that represents the group; however, it is possible to have a mediation where all disputants partake.
- If, in the opinion of the mediator, having more than one disputant on each side involved becomes disruptive, the mediator may require selection of a spokesman, and may close the mediation if the parties fail to do so.
- If a representative has been chosen, then the representative should be the only one who speaks. If the mediator has required selection of a spokesman, then the other parties must speak through the spokesman.
- In exceptional circumstances the representative may be switched mid-process.
- The disputant group may in consensus withdraw from the mediation process, in which case arbitration and summary action by Jimbo Wales still remain as options.
- A single user or a faction of users within the disputant group may withdraw from consensus, ending the mediation process, which may be restarted and reframed if possible. Separate and independent mediations; also arbitration and summary action by Jimbo Wales still remain as options.
- Usernames of disputants and of representant of disputants are publicly announced.
As mediation is a consensual process the use of an Advocate may be subject to the approval of the mediator and the other disputant(s) in such a process unless the Advocate is just assisting the disputant(s) privately outside the mediation activity.
Procedure for mediation
Disputant(s) should contact the other party and get their consent for mediation, then contact the Wikipedia:Mediation Committee, who will then appoint someone to act as a mediator. Also file your request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation.
What will happen when you ask for mediation ?
It is very important to us that you are welcomed and feel that we care about your problems.
Before any mediation can start, several points will be taken into consideration
A mediator will check that other alternatives of dispute resolution have been tried;
The mediator will check your motivation as regards mediation, then will check whether the other disputant is willing to proceed in that direction as well.
- These two steps are very important as no mediation can occur if both parties do not feel there might be a solution through that process. Mediation is a voluntary process, that can succeed only if both disputants are willing to give it a try;
You will then have to agree both on a mediator to facilitate your discussions. Take your time, this choice might be essential. You need to feel you can trust that person;
- All along these various steps, we recommend that you do not hesitate to ask any questions as regards the procedure itself, and in particular your rights as regards privacy issues. Anything that is said during the mediation will stay private, and will not be used against you later on.
- It is very important to us that you feel the process is fair. Keep in mind that you may at any time quit the process if you feel it is going wrong, change mediator or request help from more than one mediator if you think that might help. The mediators are here to help you communicate with the other parties, not to judge you. In particular, they will not have any power of final decision over an article or over banning.
Who will mediate?
The current committee feels that it would be best that the disputants have maximal input on that matter. It is strongly suggested that the disputants express their preferences.
We suggest the following options:
- Any of the disputants may suggest one or several mediator names when requesting a mediation. If all parties agree on a mediator, and the mediator agrees as well, then he or she will take care of that mediation;
- If none of the disputants suggested a name, a mediator may step in and propose his or her help. If all parties agree on working with the person, then he or she will take care of that mediation;
- If no one steps in, the committee will suggest a name.
- At any step during the mediation, the committee may suggest another person if thought preferable. In the last two cases, decisions over the chosen mediator will take into account history of relationships between disputants and mediator, as well as mediator availability.
Why should mediation be confidential?
- By being a mandatory channel for communication, the mediator may filter out the bad vibes, rephrase the harsh comments to be less likely to promote anger, let through the apologies, the points on which there is agreement, and the kind and forgiving comments.
- Mediation as a public process can also be impaired, because other well-meaning people may get involved, with little understanding of the current situation, and will in effect do more bad than good. Typically, it will become a mess when someone comes along and takes the side of one of the disputants.
- Mediation as a public process can break down entirely when a person with bad intentions gets involved, with the clear intention of further fueling the conflict.
- Further more, when two users are in conflict, they may say things that they will strongly regret afterwards. It will forever be in the other disputant's mind, forever in other editors' minds, and forever written on the talk page, or in the comment box, or in the editing history. When the conflict is over, even if forgiveness has been offered, it will take much more time to forget.
- While some people are very talkative, others are not. Some are highly aware of the other people around, and dare not say things that might help resolve the conflict, just because other people will be reading those words.
- It is much easier to say something that is difficult to say to a friendly person, rather than to a whole community.
- All parties may be wary that information revealed may later be used outside of the mediation process to their disadvantage, either in arbitration proper, or in later conflict with the same or other editors. Information publicly revealed could perhaps also cause prejudice against them in their private lives.
See also
- meta:mediation
- meta:incivility
- m:Mediation oversight procedure
- Wikilove
- Wikipedia:Mediation and Arbitration (proposal)cs:Wikipedie:Mediace
de:Wikipedia:Vermittlungsausschuss nl:Wikipedia:Vrijwillige bemiddelaars