Mediation between users at Ireland Information Guide

The basic philosophy of Ireland Information Guide, (probably inherent in wiki-based social software) 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 and arbitration has been set up. This system is meant to resolve disputes, resolve issues of users who have repeatedly violated Ireland Information Guide's policies, most specifically Ireland Information Guide's etiquette towards other users as stated at Ireland Information Guide:Policies and guidelines and Ireland Information Guide:Wikiquette. See also Ireland Information Guide:Mediation committee. Mediation requests are filed at Ireland Information Guide:Requests for mediation.

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; lato sensu is any activity in which an agreement on whatever matter is researched by an impartial third party, usually a professional, in the common interest of the parties.

The common aspects of mediation, that seem to apply to all the fields of application, could be concisely summarised in the presence of these basic factors:

• a controversy, a dispute or generically a contraposition, a difference of positions between (or among) the respective parties;
• the free and not conditioned will of the parties 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 constructive help of a third person, usually independent, neutral and in no connection at all with any of the involved parties (as opposite to the intention of achieving respective goals in a conflictual way);
• the intention of achieving a steady result, preferably a per se long lasting agreement.

The ordinary form of a mediated agreement contains the free and self-determined consensus of the parties on a proposal of agreement 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, even if this would perhaps seem natural at a first sight.

The typical activity has no formally compulsory methods, even if some common elements are ususally found, mainly consisting of:

• the clarification and detailed specification of the respective interests and objectives,
• the conversion of respective subjective evaluations into more objective values,
• the representation to the parties of a collection of possible solutions,
• the verification of eventual effects of possible solutions on respective positions,
• the adjustment and the refining of the accessory aspects,
• the translation of the result of treaties into a draft of agreement perhaps in written form),
• the formalisation of the agreement.

Obviously, due to the particular character of this activity, each mediator can use a method of his own, which might eventually be very different from the above scheme, that however contains the main aspects of the process (though the formalisation is sometimes left aside).

Mediation should guarantee safety, fairness and closure in dispute resolution.

The role of mediator is less controversial than the role of arbitrator, if only because a mediator may only propose, rather than impose, a contract. The assumed moral or legal responsibility, or even liability, of the mediator differs drastically in different methods - for instance, in global political negotiations, it is often difficult to find anyone who is sufficiently trusted by both sides to even get a peace process to begin. Accordingly, liability is not assigned to the mediator no matter how badly things go wrong - doing so would discourage future efforts to help.

Scope and purpose of mediation on Ireland Information Guide

The main purpose of Ireland Information Guide mediation framework is to provide a means to resolve disputes over articles when the standard consensus editing model is not working.
It is also a means to resolve conflicts between editors. Some editors behave in such a way that it creates an atmosphere of animosity and disrespect. This directly affects the quality of the community experience at Ireland Information Guide. By hurting the community, the quality of articles is affected as well.
The best mediation would be the one protecting both content and community. It will aim 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 work out their disagreements 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 Ireland Information Guide community as a whole.

Unlike mediation in legal and business matters, Ireland Information Guide 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.

only a recommandation. More would be arbitration. The mediator must be first of all seen as someone helping the disputant to talk together. He must help de-escalate the conflict, but the solution has to be found and accepted by disputants first. Anthere

What mediation is not:

1. Mediation is not Facilitation. So, while mediation may lead to better work on articles or between editors, it is not specifically designed to faciliate the editing of articles where people disagree but the issue has not come to an impasse yet.
2. Mediation is not Arbitration. The arbitration process at Ireland Information Guide exists to impose binding solutions to Ireland Information Guide disputes. This solution may be anything up to and including a ban from editing the entire Ireland Information Guide for a period of time. This is not the goal of mediation.
3. Mediation is not Soapbox or Discussion Forum. If a user feels a need to have that kind of forum, the talk pages of users and article will have to suffice.
4. Mediation is not a place to test Anarchism. The fact that Ireland Information Guide is an open, self-governing project does not mean that any part of its purpose is to explore the viability of anarchistic communities. Our purpose is to build an encyclopedia, not to test the limits of anarchism. The mediation process is not to be used to test the limits of the community's forbearance.

People involved in Ireland Information Guide mediation

Mediators

Mediators will be part of the Ireland Information Guide:Mediation Committee. Mediators will be experienced Ireland Information Guide users. They will form a community of trust.

A mediator is first of all a facilitator. His/her job is to facilitate communication between users, especially during disputes. Of course, anyone can mediate between anyone else, that will not change. Which is nice.

However, in practice, some noted there is not always someone available to help them; or, for newbies, they do not know where to address. Or it may be that a difficult user is repeating pattern or to lose control on certain emotionally-charged topics, while they can work constructively on other topics. This kind of user would be best approached by someone who is aware of his difficulties. Also, some can not mediate a conflict they could handle because they have a history of lukewarm relationships with one of the users.

Mediators may not always follow the traditional role model of mediation. In all cases they should strive to achieve conciliation through negotiation. Transformative justice principles adopt well to the mediation context. 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. — Alex756 19:26, 11 Oct 2003 (UTC)

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.

• Original call for mediation can be made by any disputant or group of disputants or a third party may suggest that the disputants seek mediation which they may, if they so wish, concur with.

• 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 usernames can in consensus choose to dispute through mediation with a single disputant or another disputant group.
  • Disputant groups have to choose a representant from amongst them who may consult with the group during the process.
  • The representant is the only one who speaks.
  • In exceptional circumstances the representant 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 username or a faction of usernames within the disputant group may withdraw from consensus, ending the mediation process, which may be restarted and reframed if possible as ab novo, 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.

Advocates

• Disputants, individually or in the group scenario mentioned above, may decide that their point of view is best represented by an "Advocate". The Advocate can work with the member to help them to better present themselves in mediation, or may speak for the disputant to help to present the disputants point of view in a clear, concise manner to help facilitate the discussion process in mediation. All decisions remain with the disputant(s) in such a case. The Advocate is just a facilitator, though unlike the mediator the Advocate does not have to encourage dispute resolution (though they may) but to help with the articulation of the dispute so it can be better understood by the mediator and the other party or parties. There are volunteers who are willing to serve in this capacity. They can be contacted through the Association of Members' Advocates. Advocates may be anonymous when they privately help a member, or, if they appear in the mediation process they will formally become a "representant" of the disputant(s) and their usernames will then be publically 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

The first step that should be undertaken to resolve all disputes is to put such individuals who face such disputes to the review of a mediator. Any user or group of users may request mediation for a dispute. If a group the group should pick one person to represent them. That person should contact the Ireland Information Guide:Mediation Committee. That committee will appoint someone to act as a mediator. That mediator will inform the other party that mediation has been requested. See also: meta:mediation.

Generally, the process consists of an introduction by the mediator, the presentation of areas of concern (the issues in dispute) by the complainant, an opportunity for the respondant to reply, and a continuation of alternating responses until either the issue is resolved or the parties are obviously not going to reach agreement. The role of the mediator is to guide the process, insuring that each party has an uninterrupted opportunity to speak and respond, until either resolution or stalemate.

Mediation is a private process. Anything that is said or discussed in mediation may not be used later in any Ireland Information Guide:arbitration proceeding or any other proceeding. The mediator is there to help the different sides of the disagreement to express their point of view and hopefully the parties will be able to understand the point of view of the opposing side. The hope is that through mediation some kind of agreement will be reached and the parties shall follow that agreement.

There are no standardized procedures for mediation. If the parties can agree it can take any form. It may be done by email, by instant messenger, by telephone or by any other mutually agreed upon means.

While the mediator is initially neutral the goal is to reach some kind of mutually agreeable solution, so the mediator may appear to be taking sides during the mediation. It is important to remember that the mediator cannot force any party to the mediation to come to a particular decision and if that has been done any agreement may not be respected as being entered into under duress or undue influence.

The mediation may result in agreements that will be posted on the Mediation Committee's pages and also linked to the user's talk page, displayed in a predominant position.
If the parties agree to a course of action as a solution, i.e. the problem user agrees to not do certain things, and if the problem user does those actions, it might result in another attempt at mediation or might mean arbitration is necessary. A ban is always beyond the scope of the mediation committee.

Steps

1. Articles are reverted to their pre-dispute contents and are closed to any editing while mediation proceeds. Boilerplate text is placed at the top of the article and the page is protected.
2. Mediators seek common ground among the disputants and try to clear up misunderstandings.
3. Mediators make a special effort to consider the merits of the question involved without regard to the background or editing history of the disputants.
4. Mediators set the pace to balance the benefits of "cooling off" with the goal of reasonably rapid closure. Most mediation efforts should be completed in a matter of 3-10 days.
5. Mediators may propose solutions, which may include specific article text.
6. The mediator may update the article with any changes that both disputants accept.
7. When consensus is reached, the fact of article mediation and the agreement reached is documented on the article's talk page. Once disputants make an agreement, they are expected to follow it.
8. The article is reopened to editing once mediation is complete

Some roles a mediator could hold

a mediator may be

• someone initiating communication or facilitating communication (such as when user A request apology but does not indicate on which points precisely)

• someone helping all parties to recognise the right of the other to be involved in the negotiation or in conflict resolution (such as when User B indicates that User A was out of his role when trying to fix alone a specific point)

• someone providing a procedure, with a collection of steps along which to proceed (such as 1) agreeing on the report of events 2) discussing the various options 3) asking the parties what they think of the other person opinion 4) asking the parties what they are waiting from the other etc…)

• someone training a disputant to negotiate with the other party (such as explaining one party what is the best way to end conflict with the other user). Note : this might be considered advocacy as well

• someone providing external resources to the disputants, to help them reach an acceptable option (such as orienting them toward legal assistance, technical experts, advocate)

• someone enabling the people in conflict to examine a problem from a variety of viewpoints, help define basic issues and interest, look for mutually satisfactory options (such as providing other people's opinion on a matter, trying to make disputants aware of the root of conflict, suggesting most easily agreeable points to settle on)

• someone helping building a solution himself, asking to the two parties if they can agree on this (this would be an extreme solution, where the mediator becomes somehow a leader, but that might be a solution when people have unrealistic expectations)

Why should mediation be confidential?

WP has recently decided to increasingly use mediation as a means of resolving disputes -- and in particular, to create an official mediation committee to help resolve disputes between participants. Why is this so?

Mediation is not something new; it is something that you can do whenever you see two editors are getting stuck in a debate and/or begin exchanging unfriendly comments. It may be used in a variety of circumstances, from just cooling down the situation (so that editors may regain their wits), helping each party to see the other's point of view, or providing a procedure so that a conflict can move toward resolution.

Now, what often happens when someone begins to work with two people involved in a conflict and the mediation is happening in public, is that the whole process gets stuck because:

• The two in conflict go on fighting with each other; they refuse the give up irrelevant little fights to focus on the root of the conflict itself. Often, the conflict will include discussions such as “I request that you apologize for what you said” and the answer will be “go to hell”, while the specific points that one person is asking the other to apologize for are not even mentioned. At this point, any constructive discussion is over. The conflict may escalate until the point of no return, where both say things that will be very hard to forget (insults, serious accusations, humiliations, threats, calls for banning, comparison of the other person to a well-known vandal).

How can private mediation help? 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.

How can private mediation help? By removing unhelpful noise, and perhaps keeping the positive comments the mediator may privately receive.

• 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.

How can private mediation help? By preventing the destructive comments of trolls.

• Mediation is first of all a service that should be offered with friendliness. It is likely that the mediator will make his or her own mind up about the conflict (though it would be best that the mediator does not, it is probably not realistic to imagine anyone could stay entirely neutral deep inside oneself), but the mediator should ideally try to see the best in each person involved in the conflict, in order to share that "best" with the other disputant. For this reason, it is important that each disputant feels the mediator is somehow a friend, someone who can understand his or her point of view. The mediator should first of all be happy to help, should feel empathy toward both disputants, and strongly feel the necessity to help both, not favour one. If the person doesn’t feel way, he or she should probably not try to help. Unfortunately, when a mediator expresses friendliness with one of the disputants, especially at the beginning of a mediation, there is high chance that the second disputant perceiving this in the wrong way and interpreting the friendly comment as a bias toward the other disputant. This person may then lose his faith in the impartiality of the mediator.

How can private mediation help? By preventing misunderstanding of the mediator's position, and confusing friendliness toward the other person with a bias towards the other person.

• Another important point is this one: 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.

How can private mediation help? The harsh words will stay only with the emailer and the memory of the mediator. Nowhere else.

• 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.

How can private mediation help? It is much easier to say something that is difficult to say, to spill one’s guts, to a friendly person, rather than to a whole community, which may consist of friends, but also of people who are not really friends as well.

• Finally, 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.

How can private mediation help? Mediation might work best if the parties are assured that the discussion will be kept confidential

For such reasons, on WP, mediation is private, which means that most discussions between disputants and mediators will take place offline. It is suggested that participants do not directly communicate with each other, but through the mediator only.

Confidentiality in mediation is not something unusual. Professionals in mediation do believe that in the long run, mediation may not flourish if reasonable expectations of confidentiality are not met. Participants in mediation (the disputants as well as the mediator) are told that their discussions will be kept confidential. In accepting mediation, disputants also agree to keep what was said private.

Indeed, the very interests served by maintaining the confidentiality of communications in mediation require that there be some exceptions to that confidentiality. Information that was given publicly, can also be displayed publicly. Information on which both disputants have agreed to make public can be displayed publicly. And finally, a disputant may choose to tell the mediator that this specific piece of information, or all information he gives privately, may be public afterwards. It is up to disputants to decide what should be private and what should be public, and ultimately, it is the mediator choice to display or not, what he heard, even if he received the agreement of the speaker.

For most people, it seems unlikely that they would participate in a meaningful and productive way without that assurance and expectation. However, others argue that they would prefer that discussions be public. Indeed, people are entitled to public discussions for conflict resolution, but that is not the way WP chose for its official mediation to occur.

See also

• Ireland Information Guide:Mediation Committee
• Ireland Information Guide:Requests for mediation
• The mediation bulletin board (http://boards.wikimedia.org/viewforum.php?f=1)
• Ireland Information Guide:Arbitration Committee
• meta:mediation
• meta:incivility
• m:Mediation oversight procedure
• Wikilove
• Ireland Information Guide:Mediation and Arbitration (proposal)
• Information Guide Ireland Information Guide mediation IRC channel (irc://irc.freenode.net/mediation.Ireland)