User:SebastianHelm/MedAd

A mediator-administrator or MedAd is a mediator with administrator privileges. This combination speeds up the mediation process and allows a new type of mediation, #protected mediation, which would not be feasible otherwise.

History

The term was coined by Askari Mark, and I saw it first in my RfA:

As someone who has been watching and occasionally trying to help out with Wikipedia:WikiProject_Sri_Lanka_Reconciliation, I feel I can strongly endorse his becoming an administrator. This WP is a groundbreaking and focused attempt to find a “third way” to resolve disagreements over a related body of contentious articles rather than watch the same edit wars replay themselves on one page after another. (In fact, it might not be a bad idea to have a new type of admin ... a mediator-admin.) Askari Mark (Talk) 18:52, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I have been trying to act by this ideal since, primarily at WP:SLR. I think I gained a track record of trying to be fair. I know I'm not perfect, but I am always willing to listen to any concerns. A quote by Barack Obama summarizes well what motivates me:

[For Lincoln], it was a matter of maintaining within himself the balance between two contradictory ideas - that we must talk and reach for common understandings, precisely because all of us are imperfect and can never act with the certainty that God is on our side; and yet at times we must act nonetheless, as if we are certain, protected from error only by providence.

Protected mediation

One prime task for a mediator-administrator ("MedAd") is protected mediation. I'm currently experimenting with this at talk:Chola dynasty, where the page was fully protected by another administrator before I was asked to mediate. In that case, I created a compromise version as a basis for the mediation. That is working well because editors who want the change are motivated to provide good reasons (in particular reliable sources).

Depending on the complexity of the problem and on how much time the MedAd can spend on the mediation, I recommend the following steps. In reality, you may want to apply methods from either list as appropriate.

Simple problems - less mediation

The following procedure is ideal for issues with only two possibilities. It may also be especially helpful for MedAds who feel more comfortable with administrator actions than with mediation.

1. MedAd protects the original version of the article. (That is, the reverted version, not the re-reverted one per WP:SLR/Don't re-revert!.)
2. If the original version contains disputed text, then MedAd marks it with appropriate templates, such as {{fact}} or {{Verify credibility}}.
3. MedAd creates a new section on talk page dedicated to the mediation, explaining why the original version was protected, and asking both parties to provide reliable sources or other appropriate reasons for their proposed version.
4. Each time someone provides a reliable source or other appropriate reason, MedAd implements the proposed change.
5. If the text contains templates as per (2) above, and after an appropriate time the interested party has provided no remedy, then MedAd will remove the marked text.
6. If MedAd feels that the conflict has calmed down to a point where both parties can be trusted to edit without edit warring, MedAd will unprotect the article.

Complex problems - more mediation

1. MedAd temporarily protects any version of the article to stop edit fight.
2. MedAd creates a new section on article talk page (or a dedicated subpage, if there are other ongoing discussions on the talk page), similar to Talk:Chola_Dynasty#Content_dispute, pointing editors to this section so they know what to expect.
3. On the basis of the diff between the disputed versions, MedAd creates a table like the Talk:Chola_Dynasty#Table of changes under this mediation, with a row for each disputed change ("issue"), and columns for
   1. Issue: This is a short name for each issue that needs to be neutral so it can be adopted by both parties
   2. Description: Description of the issue that targets the problem and does not mention any of the involved editors
   3. Line: Line number in the diff. When line numbers between both sides of the diff differ (because lines have been inserted or deleted), then number refers to the right side. Lines that have been deleted will be referred to by roman lower case letters, added to the number of the preceding line, such as line "14a". The reason why I recommend using the right side number is that this was what I did in the Chola mediation. It also fits well when MedAd uses the first conflicted edit as a diff, since such edits are more likely to contain additions than deletions, which eliminates the need for special numbers for deleted lines.
   4. Action: Action the MedAd took. Examples: "Add": added the text; "Rem." removed the text.
   5. Reason: Reason for action.
   6. Status: Initially empty, will be filled with "discussed" and eventually with "resolved".
4. For each row, MedAd:
   1. assesses which version comes closer to Wikipedia rules and guidelines, or decides on a compromise between the two versions,
   2. explains the decision in the table, and
   3. edits the article accordingly.
5. Parties are asked to discuss issues one or two at a time, with no more than 3 lines, by simply referring to a reliable source or Wikipedia policy that backs up their preferred version.
6. Implementing changes as per Simple problems (4).
7. Remaining steps same as for Simple problems.

Shortcut

The Don't re-revert rule implicitly specifies which version should be protected (thus addressing the WP:WRONG problem). Maybe we could write that explicitly into the rule.