What can we change in article during mediation?[edit]

I assume a) issues settle; b) issues we agree could not settle (or use other methods to settle issue); c) new issues that for whatever reason we doubt are controversial or do not know if they are until we put them in the article and see the response. Carol Moore 12:19, 2 May 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

There's no limits on article editing during an mediation unless all parties agree to a limitation. That hasn't come up here, although there have been several mentions about reverting being a problem and editors inserting things that they should reasonably believe will be controversial.
Not related to mediation, but just some ideas for dealing with disputes: In general, continuous reverting quickly becomes a problem because not only does in leave the article in a state of flux with editors trying to force their preferences, but it makes discussions very difficult since editors tend to get defensive, short with each other and spend more time talking about the reverting than the issue . For more information about ways to edit controversial articles (or anywhere really), my personal favorite is the essay that describes how to work through issues by being bold, getting reverted and then discussing to resolve the issue. Another tool I've seen work well in article situations like these is, instead of reverting (unless its vandalism), stick to just editing what others have written to try to bring both viewpoints closer together. Shell babelfish 03:39, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you state which issues are closed?[edit]

Could you as mediator state which issues that have been discussed are now considered closed so that no more discussion is allowed? And separately list any issues that you have concluded are unresolvable? Thank you, Jgui (talk) 12:26, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, looking at the archives:
Hope that's what you were looking for. Shell babelfish 04:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you state how you close issues?[edit]

Could you let us know how and when you decide that an issue is closed - is this based on a vote or some other means? Thank you, Jgui (talk) 12:26, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Its based on consensus if we've been able to find an agreement; it can also be based on experience, where as, in my opinion, its unlikely that the participants are going to reach an agreement, all proposals have been discarded or the debate has gotten personal and is causing further mistrust between editors involved in the dispute. Its not cut and dry, but its unlikely that anything will be closed on a simple vote; Wikipedia just doesn't work that way. I'd again suggest reading WP:Mediation, which covers this process in detail. Please remember that I am only here to facilitate discussion based on my experience, not make judgments on content or contributors. I can help the discussion along, suggest compromises and close discussion when it becomes unhelpful, but I cannot decide for you. For example, some things to consider:
The ordinary form of a mediated agreement is the consensus of the parties on a proposal that has been developed with the help of the mediator. The mediator may or may not set out a formal agreement for the parties to accept; some mediators prefer to help guide the parties towards developing their own agreement. Agreement to mediate does not obligate the parties to accept any proposed agreements.
Mediation is at its best when it is simultaneously protecting content and community. Mediation aims at working with the users in conflict to incorporate the information or viewpoints of both, while ensuring that the result conforms to all applicable Wikipedia policies. At the same time, it endeavors to produce sufficient peace between the parties to allow amicable discussion and prevent the need for future dispute resolution.
Wikipedia mediators are permitted and encouraged to use their own best judgment to recommend a solution to the disputants, one that is in the best interests of the project. Where the position of one disputant is clearly unreasonable, fringe, or based on a strong point of view, the mediator is not required to subvert the integrity of the encyclopedia in order to reach a resolution.
A mediator is first and foremost a facilitator. The responsibility of a mediator is to facilitate communication between users during disputes. Anyone can mediate informally between parties, but formal mediation is only provided by the Mediation Committee.
Mediators may not always follow the traditional model of mediation. In all cases they strive to achieve conciliation through negotiation. Mediators listen to both sides, they attempt to help each party recognize and value the other party's position. Mediators attempt to resolve differences in a mutually agreeable manner, and try to ensure meaningful discussions can take place. Shell babelfish 04:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
More