User:SebastianHelm/Mediation

How I got into mediation

I never had considered explicitly doing mediation until I received my first barnstar, in which Katr67 complimented me on "superior mediation skills". When, soon thereafter, CakeProphet made me aware of the Mediation Cabal, I took on my first case, Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-10-20 Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, which resonated with my admiration for the mediation efforts of Nonviolent Peaceforce. That led to intensive engagement with the Mediation Cabal, of which I became coordinator, and to the founding of Wikiproject Sri Lanka Reconciliation, which became the model for similar projects in the English and French Wikipedia.

Mediation cases

I closed the following successfully - thanks to all involved parties!

• 2006-10-20 Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam - led to the creation of WP:SLR
• 2006-12-19 Carson
• 2006-12-08 Turn Left
• 2006-11-28 Metropolis Magazine - article Metropolis (free magazine) was kept and eventually rated as Mid-importance by WikiProject Japan.
• 2006-11-09 Kbdank71 - discreet mediation per e-mail
• 2006-12-26 Decline of Buddhism in India - solved using table of alternatives and discussion

The above list is not complete. I was active with such formal cases through WP:MEDCAB until December 2007. From January 2007 to January 2010, I did most of my mediation through WPLSLR:Wikiproject Sri Lanka Reconciliation or ad hoc, e.g. when someone asked me on my talk page.

An interesting exception to the closed cases was User:Lucky 6.9 reverting his own Talk page, which I could not close since it was deleted by the central participant.

How I work

Mediation cases can span a wide range from informal to formal, depending on how big and complicated the issue is and how familiar each party is with Wikipedia. The two sections describe ideal end points of this continuum. In any case I always commit to my principles, many of which were sparked by my experiences as a mediator.

Informal mediation

In some cases, party A is just not familiar with our guidelines and party B is unable to explain them to A, or A doesn't care. In that case, I contact A first, usually secretly before I accept a case and talk with them to find out what A's underlying issue is, what A is actually trying to achieve and guide them towards achieving this in accordance with our guidelines. Often, a case then can be closed without ever making it public.

Formal mediation

In more complicated cases, I use the mediation page and its talk page as follows:

1. Add the following note to section "Quick info about this case":

   This section has been filled out by requestor. Please edit it after explaining your edits on the talk page. Mediator reserves the right to revert any edits without discussion.

2. Delete all personal attacks.
3. Investigate allegations. If they're unclear, I remove them and ask requestor what they meant.
4. Add a section "Updates" as a timeline for this case, with a table for "Date/time (UTC)" and "Status"
5. Add an entry into that table saying e.g.

   Case accepted by mediator {{user|my name}}, parties have been informed, edited "What's going on" section

6. Notify both parties. Clarify to requestee that either side can edit the "Quick info about this case" section, and remind them to watch the page.

If I gather the impression that the current version mainly reflects one party's version (e.g. because they was the last to revert) I may edit the page to a temporary compromise. Since this requires some judgement, I usually only do this as a way to get the last reverter back to the mediation table, when that party lost interest in the mediation after they pushed their opinion.

This is of course an idealization; real cases don't follow this ideal thoroughly. I first did this in Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/User:Lucky 6.9 reverting his own Talk page, which got deleted since by an involved party. One case that comes close is Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-12-26 Decline of Buddhism in India, although I haven't edited the "What's going on" section there since my impression was that it already was quite factual.

Principles

See User:SebastianHelm/principles