I initially added these as comments on the freespace page, but Herb asked me to post them here:
I'm still reading the whole thing, but found myself stumbling over this: "For present discussion purposes, this results in a Mentor Intervention Request (MIR)." That is actually not accurate. An MIR is one possible result.
Another sentence that is not accurate: "No one advocates for the subject." First off, I don't know how you would know this unless you were in the Mediators group. Second, I have many times seen people advocate for the subject of an MIR. I myself have advocated for MIR subjects.
Re: "Further, on escalation to Stage Three or Four, the Mentor or Mediator should be required to provide a complete description of the specific rule violations alleged and any information, not included in the MIR, that the Mediators considered in their decision (previous history, personal knowledge, etc)."
This is already part of the existing process.
From my experience, rarely do people go directly to stage 4 without going first to stage 3. So their first contact is often a mentor who writes to them offering help; EDITED TO ADD: As John A pointed out in the G2G, actually, their first contact is often another wikitreer reaching out PRIOR to submitting an MIR.
I'm not sure how contacting them earlier will provide additional value. It's also been my experience that *in most cases,* the mentor is approaching with an open and curious mind. I realize that there have been exceptions. But by no means does the current approach equate to "trial in absentia."
A review process involving other peers *might* be useful, but I would recommend only at the team escalation stage. (Team may not think so, though.) Prior to that, it feels a bit like too many cooks in the kitchen, and might actually be uncomfortable for the person being mentored. An alternative might be to give the person being mentored/mediated the option of bringing in a peer reviewer. I'd want to think about that some more, though.
I concur that the help page about sharing with others needs to be clarified. I did ask about this, internally, and there is no explicit rule against sharing with others, but you're right that the language is not as clear as it could be.