Talk:Mediation oversight procedure

Some thoughts on what this page contains:

I have tried to just state the obvious, as far as possible, thus giving a very loose, primarily mental support structure for anyone who has to be involved with the mediation process. In general, I think my prose is excecrable, but I find this is the style that comes out, when I think about these matters. Probably needs a very comprehensive copyedit, if and when it is considered useful in general. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogo stick 07:41, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

If the overseer taps a mediator on the shoulder, the mediator will have a significant urge to defend hir actions to the mediator and the mediatees. If this is not desired, it should be forbidden. Also, consider whether the text of messages 4,5,6 should be confidential. (cf Meatball:OpenProcess)

Well, I agree fully with what you say about overwhelming urges. I haven't written it in though, because I cannot find a phrasing that would effect it. What are we forbidding? Referring to the criticisms? Doesn't sound like that would work. Probably the simplest thing would be having that message contain no explicit critique at all, but just the phrase "I am duly tapping you on the shoulder." (that was my original idea in any case, since even just a listing can indeed be seen as a form of interference) In fact I am going to do just that.

The matter of confidentiality of the ritual exchanges; well, there can be arguments on both sides. I think that will probably have to be voted up or down by the whole mediation committee if this thing ever flies. I am certainly not fixed on the matter. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogo stick 15:46, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

My opinion, for what it is worth, is that the parties are the people who know when the mediator is acting inappropriately. However, it is not clear to me if the Mediation Committee is an impartial mediator or if they are mediating FOR the Wikipedia community. If the second is the case, there may be some way for the mediators to appoint someone within their group to keep an eye out for the other mediators to make sure that they are acting appropriately, sort of like a mentor, until mediators get so good at mediation that they could teach us all a course in it. IF there was inappropriate behaviour, then the mentor could try to give the mediators a few pointers to steer them back onto the right track, or might suggest that they recuse themselves and then allow someone else on the mediation committee to start a new mediation session. I would hesitate to get Jimbo involved with mediation, because he should be left out of the loop until any negotiations have truly broken down. Alex756 18:02, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

<<...the parties are the people who know the mediator is acting inappropriately.>>

Well, yes. That is certainly something which will rein in the mediator somewhat. In fact it may rein the mediator even a bit too much. Would be nice to have some incentive for the disputants to try and take what benefit they can from the mediation process. If both disputants are overconfidant about having a good case in arbitration against each other, they may (one or both) wish to colour the mediators attempts as biased against themselves. Knowing the kinds of problem users we have on wikipedia, it could happen.

On the matter of do the mediators represent the wikipedia community interest, other than by providing a service, I haven't really thought about that. I think I personally would tend to be very task oriented myself. If I saw an opening to secure something more widely useful for the whole community, perhaps I would feel tempted to steer things that way, if it didn't compromise the result of the mediation, but it wouldn't be something on the top of my mind. I guess I would have to say I would tend to view mediation as a good thing in itself, not as a way to influence wikipedias affairs beyond the dispute at hand.

I guess if there ever was a case in which it was not a single user or group of users against one individual, but for instance a whole wikipedia against a single individual, things could get a lot more hairy. Hmm. I'll have to think about that...

In any case, this whole thing started as me just putting some thoughts together, so I would not be wholly unprepared when and if stuff begins to coalesce more. (though I confess it got a little bit out of hand) We don't even have a mailing list or BBS or what ever we are going to have. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogo stick 08:40, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)

oh, but that is curious. Do you plan to have only one person involved, or don't you think more than once would be best ? In this case, the mediators may "monitor" each other for possible bias. No ? ant

---

It is not a good idea that Jimbo is involved at that step. He is himself saying he only be a valve pressure at the end of arbitration. Could we rework this to remove Jimbo influence ? What do other people think of a second mediator looking at what the first one does ? I am midly convinced only, but well... Anthere

Why not just leave it up to the mediator. If they have the sense to know that the process is derailing, they can talk to other mediators (of their choice) privately. I think in most cases one of the parties will be the cause of the breakdown of mediation. They will just refuse to discuss anything any longer. I doubt that the mediators will often be the cause of such a dead end, as long as they stay open minded and just try to find the neutral ground between the parties. The point is that a mediator can discuss, in a general way, their mediation sessions with other mediators to improve their mediation skills. I personally don't think that someone needs to be a "boss" over mediators, they should be independent because of the nature of mediation, it is confidential, they cannot be supervised without disclosing confidential information. That is a no-no. Alex756 06:13, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)

agreed. Ant

Alex, I can't succeed to find again the messages on the email list. Which list was it ? Which month ? Ant