Basic competency criteria for dispute resolution.
- Mediator has sought and been granted permission from all parties to participate in discussion.
- Mediator has explicitly offered to accept and accepted any terms required of them by any of the participants.
- Mediator has explained that only the parties themselves have the power to resolve the dispute on the basis of reliable sources, non-content issues are not admissible, and enforcement is not an available outcome option.
- Mediator has obtained each party's point of view in a context where he or she can be fully heard out, and reflected it back so the party can authorise the mediator's articulation of it as being a fair representation of that party's specific position.
- Mediator has represented the concerns of each party to each of how ever many other parties there may be.
- Mediator has conveyed any new responses to relevant parties where communication had been previously obstructed.
- Mediator has published to all parties a summary of his or her own perception of what the issues actually are, without also offering any solution at this stage.
- Mediator has given sufficient opportunity and encouragement to all parties to now resolve their own disagreements, in a manner that does not compromise reliable sources, but upholds all due points of view.
- If this fails, mediator has attempted to identify an authoritative reliable source or sources, respected by all parties, which can resolve the disagreement.
- Finally, if the parties cannot agree, either on information already to hand, or after consulting additional sources, the mediator may declare that, "after all reasonable attempts have been made to settle this dispute on the basis of reliable sources, parties have not come to consensus, mediation has failed, you are on your own."
It may be worth having "content deciding" editors who can enforce content decisions when reliable sources exist, but are being opposed by a majority of parties unwilling to face facts or engage genuinely in the mediation process. Note this expedient will only be needed in practice when, for whatever reason (typically ideological or personal), it is the majority of active editors (or the most "pushy") who are obstructing the documentation of reliable sources. In other cases, the pushing of unsourced material will eventually be removed by someone, or the majority will be capable of defending reliable sources. The one exception is slanderous material, which needs to be removed ASAP.
Non content disputes should simply be ignored. No structures or processes to address anything other than content need be established. To enter into such disputes is simply to feed trolls and set a bad example of ignoring our own policy of addressing content not editors. There are no reliable or authoritative sources to determine the validity or invalidity of the actions of an IP address.