Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Archive/Welcome to new mediators

This is a partial quotation of an e-mail sent to some new Committee members that was written by other, experienced mediators as a welcome to them upon their joining the MedCom. The text was on a few later occasions sent to other new-joiners, and is preserved here for reference. AGK [•] 14:47, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

The MedCom and the MedCab are two rather different bodies. Both are equal, and neither “inferior,” but in practice activities with the MedCom differ somewhat. Below are some key points on the differences between informal and formal mediation, and a couple of words of advice.

Firstly, a lot of the cases we take here at the Committee are a lot more escalated than ones you usually get at the Cabal. We do take cases with a lot of tension between the editors. I could write essay about handling such cases, but it’s really something you figure out on your own. So instead, I suggest you learn how to tell when something is more than you can handle. If you find yourself having difficulty assuming good faith on the part of any of the participants - if you feel they are being uncivil or uncooperative, or otherwise too much trouble to deal with - your neutrality has been compromised. Stop mediating and ask another member of the Committee to step in. Because unless it involves something around the order of an editor knowing another editor’s personal identity without the other editor’s knowledge, one of us probably can assume good faith.

Secondly, tension or not, a lot of the cases you get at the Mediation Committee are much more complex and time-consuming than the Cabal ones. Don’t take too many - if you assume they are as easy as Cabal cases, you will soon overextend yourself. Start off slow. Also, if you have trouble on any of the cases, don’t hesitate to ask on the list. We won’t look down on you for it, and will admire you for knowing when you need help. Some key principles: the voluntary nature of mediation, and the confidentiality of mediation. We never issue a ruling, only suggestions that we hope will make everyone happy. We cannot close a case without 100% consensus from participants who bother to share their view, and we do wait longer for them to do that then you might at the Cabal. We do not pressure people into joining the mediation, and participants can change their mind about agreeing to the mediation or the mediator at any time, and that must be respected. Also, we cannot enforce any policy outside of our own Mediation Committee policy while acting as mediators.

As for the confidentiality of mediation, under no circumstances can mediation be used as evidence for disciplinary proceedings, especially Arbitrations. We can and should remove use of such evidence. So far as I know, the Arbitration Committee has always respected our right to do this. If they don’t, we can appeal to Jimbo. In order to make this easy on you, we recommend either isolating mediation to an easily-deletable subpage (not the article talk page), or mediating privately to begin with, either on the MedComWiki or by email.

You should only speak on behalf of the Mediation Committee after coming to consensus with other members of the Committee. The exception is if you are the Chair or if you’ve been around long enough to know the Committee would agree to something without having to ask, and even then exceptions must be made carefully. You don’t qualify yet. So only speak for the Committee after having discussion here. Otherwise, you speak for yourself.

Also, stay away from maintenance tasks while you are new. Observe how we handle them. For the most part, our chair takes care of them; otherwise, more experienced members of the Mediation Committee will handle the RFM paperwork. If you are confused about why we handle things the way we do, questions are welcomed.