feel free to add to this page. Just make it clear who is saying what, thanks.

Xav[edit]

While I (Xav) have no idea what the end results of this process will be if it were created, I want to look large and propose not ground rules but general ideas to get the pump flowing. The general idea comes from Seddon. I will be using "users" instead of "editors" as vernacular to stress the conduct nature of this approach, as opposed to the content nature of mediation.

• Moderation - The immediate task of Reconcilers is to moderate discussions between users. Formalities need to be introduced on the outset with any discussion; these will be covered later.
• On-/off-wiki - An immediate approach via IRC, Skype, etc., is in many ways superior to talkpage discussions. Generally, voice communications will likely be preferred for more intensive approaches.
  • Because of this, it is extremely important that Reconcilers have previous mediation experience, and are known for creating structure in otherwise structureless environments, and have experience in quickly gaining the initiative in discussions.
• Honesty of the participants is crucial. The expectation is that undue inconsistencies in behavior will be investigated.
• The Past is inherently a part of the process. While it is preferred if Reconcilers can manage a discussion without ever dredging up the past (a more - forgive me - WikiSpiritual approach), it's more likely that User X will find some closure with User Y if past behavior is cleared up.
• Accountability - this is likely to be a source of contention, but it is my belief that this will work better if discussions are made public. That includes recording Skype conversations and keeping IRC logs. Exemptions, will, of course, be made, either for an entire discussion or portions of it. The prerogative will be firmly in the hands of the Reconciler.

• It's noted that a lot of these principles makes it difficult for some editors to accept this process; that's the point. Reconciliation will be an extremely exhausting process.
• This process ought to disband and reform on a whim, based on community opinion. It should not be seen as languishing, and it needs to take itself fairly seriously to that end.

So, anyway, whatever, here's how I think it should go were I doing it. We'll say user R, A, and Z. R is the reconciler; A and Z are the parties.

Preamble (rough, rough, rough draft)

We need to get a bunch of things out of the way, first. The preamble needs to make clear that R is the moderator. R needs to introduce A and Z. The intent of the preamble is to create detachment at first, and so the tone is as if the conversation were intended for someone else.

R - This is an attempt at reconciliation between A and Z. 
Both parties have agreed to avoid outright personal attacks, and they have agreed to have this conversation recorded.(?)
Both parties have complaints against the other. The content of these complaints have been overseen by me, R, 
but the content of the complaints is beyond my remit; I do not speak for anyone in this dispute, and am only moderating
the discussion.

Both parties were asked whether they wanted me or themselves to read their complaints. In this case, it was decided that
the parties would read them off to each other.

End preamble. Start greeting.

R - Hello! [How is everybody?] (etc)

Unmute both parties. Allow for simple smalltalk for just a bit? I suppose it depends...
Anyway, when all that's done, R should allow A and Z to issue their complaints. Probably one at a time, alternating between them. This muddles things just a bit--just by being equitable--and also allows R to control structure. It is noted that there should be no crosstalk as parties bring up their issues.

Obviously, discussion will be varied, so there's no point in writing a script. However, if party A and party Z share similar complaints against each other, go with those ones first. Discussion should be open-ended; the reconciler should be an authority, but not authoritative.