User:CanaryInACoalmine

This user was a volunteer mediator in the Mediation Cabal before it was closed. This user assumes good faith. This user maintains a strict policy advising against all personal attacks.

This user strives to maintain a policy of neutrality on controversial issues. This user is proud to be a Wikipedian. This user is a member of the Wikipedia Department of Fun.

I mediate. My goal is to calm down heated arguments. I express no substantive opinions on debates I attempt to mediate. I like to learn about different perspectives, and watching arguments is the fastest way to do this. Perhaps my goal is unattainable, but I would like to help editors to overcome their differences and collaborate to produce widely-endorsed articles.

I have learned the value of these principles in particular:

• Self-restraint - if an argument is getting hot, back off. Don't say anything with a hot head. You may change your mind later and live to regret what you said. You can always make a point more strongly, but back-pedalling is rarely a human trait. Save your best ammunition for later. Don't play all your cards at once. Keep your Ego in check, even if you feel you are right, you have been wronged or your opponent is a "moron". This is not a religiously-inspired view, but one based on the pursuit of Personal Effectiveness, Efficacy and Efficiency (see [[Effectiveness for distinction).
• If you are involved in an edit-war, try to disengage and make light. A bit of humour goes a long way in defusing a situation, especially if it is not at the expense of your adversary.
• Never write something about someone that you wouldn't want to read about yourself. Wikipedia is not about point-scoring or pushing agendas; and the best victories are bloodless.
• We do not (yet) know how the public psyche perceives Wikipedia - and maybe never will. It's best therefore to exercise caution on contentious subjects. Treat Wikipedia as powerful and authoritative, just in case it is.
• Subjectivity versus Objectivity - Even logic itself can be considered empirical so bear this in mind. Our subjectivity filters our take on reality more than we realise.
• The less you shout and edit-war, the more favorably other Wikipedians will look upon you. Since the mind is associative, people will associate your good behaviour with respecting your perspective, even if it has been deleted or edit-warred out. Edit-warring is the fastest way to alienate not just other editors, but readers too. Try to build consent rather than breeding hostility. One of the greatest things that Wikipedia exhorts us to achieve is to learn to work with anyone; this is a great life skill.
• Try to engender Goodwill. It's rare that an adversary not respond well. In the rare case that this does not work, invite other editors to contribute. Give thanks to your opponent for airing their view.
• Mediate incrementally. If a call-to-order doesn't work, explain the mediation path you will take. Go gradually, first unofficially with Wikipedia:Mediation cabal; then with Wikipedia:Mediation and, if all else fails, Wikipedia:Arbitration.
• We are all learners here. By its very nature, Wikipedia will continue to evolve. So even if instanteneously we were to attain a perfect understanding and knowledge of Wikipedia, it would immediately begin to be imperfect thereafter. In reality, Wikipedia is just too big and complex for any one of us to know everything there is to know about how to be a good Wikipedian. Therefore we all rely on each other. And it is therefore of paramount importance that we are ably to rely upon each-other's goodwill. Bear this in mind not just if you find yourself being challenged by a fellow Wikipedian, but also if you challenge a Wikipedian and get an answer you didn't expect. 'That's the moment at which you learn.' We can not just have such epiphanies ourselves, we can also watch and help others experience them too.

I wrote the following contribution in my first foray into mediation; it serves pretty well as a Manifesto:

CanaryInACoalmine's Manifesto.

"Fair play" is what's needed from all parties. Wikipedia should be used to inform and to share, accurately and without weasel words. If unintentional inaccuracies occur, then fine, the Wiki process clears them up and we all agree to that by participating; and because of the subjectivity/objectivity problem sometimes we are unaware of bias in our words, or that they would appear as weasel words. The particular trouble is that in this case the perception of accuracy by each party is (apparently) divergent, and that the subject of disagreement is (ultimately) money, stuff that can produce the most powerful emotions. So in my opinion the solution is maybe not to argue about accuracy, but to try and find some other guiding principle(s) and to agree which one(s) take(s) precendence. The key "meta issue", as I see it, is that Wikipedia's status in the public psyche is unclear. Is it just a harmless bit of lightweight fun, that can have no significant consequences? In which case we could live with a little inaccuracy and perhaps good-natured promotion of agendas. Oh, and maybe humor too! But what if Wikipedia has somehow acquired the status of some kind of authority? Can we be sure that it has or hasn't? And can we know who is going to read an article, and how much they will be influenced by it? And what effect that might have on their life and behavior? These questions are important and the answer to them must surely be "we don't yet know - and maybe never will". So what duty of care does an editor have, even unknowingly? I'll come to that in a moment. What's unique is that Wikipedia gives people who are inexperienced in the subtleties and complexities of editing and biography (of which there are many) equal standing with entries written by people who are deeply experienced in such pursuits. Unconsciously incompetent amateurs rub shoulders with consciously incompetent acolytes who comingle with consciously competent and, even unconsciously competent journeymen. Whatever the degree of one's self-awareness or competence, it's important to get it right, to be fair and to hold back on any issue of doubt; hold oneself back, I mean. And if we find others giving us cues to hold back, we should check ourselves, not just carry on blasting away. Let's treat caution from others as a signal to reflect a little on whether we're sure that our opinion is REALLY an objective fact. What is objectivity anyway? WP, in my take, hinges on the subjectivity/objectivity problem. If everyone agrees on something, is it objectively true, or is it just a mass delusion and therefore infectious subjectivity!? But I digress a little here. We should therefore adopt not just all the policies of NPOV, good faith and so forth, but also a policy of self restraint where an issue becomes contentious. As well as that, I have adopted a policy where I will not write something about someone that I would not like to see written about myself. I'd be interested for people's thoughts on this. If there is official WP policy on this topic, then please guide me. We're all learners here.

"Canary in a Coalmine" - by The Police

First to fall over when the atmosphere is less than perfect
Your sensibilities are shaken by the slightest defect
You live you life like a canary in a coalmine
You get so dizzy even walking in a straight line

You say you want to spend the winter in firenza
Youre so afraid to catch a dose of influenza
You live your life like a canary in a coalmine
You get so dizzy even walking in a straight line

Canary in a coalmine

Now if I tell you that you suffer from delusions
You pay your analyst to reach the same conclusions
You live your life like a canary in a coalmine
You get so dizzy even walking in a straight line

Canary in a coalmine

First to fall over when the atmosphere is less than perfect
Your sensibilities are shaken by the slightest defect
You live your life like a canary in a coalmine
You get so dizzy even walking in a straight line

Canary in a coalmine