Wikipedia:Mediation Committee/Nominations/The Wordsmith
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful nomination to join the Mediation Committee. Please do not modify it.
The Wordsmith (talk · contribs) has been a member of the Mediation Cabal since before I was around; he now co-administrates it with me and Phil. There are few people with these credentials. In the past year, he has actively helped build up MedCab and has worked diligently on many mediation cases while over there. He brings with him much experience, common sense, and a sense of humor. Xavexgoem (talk) 19:56, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Questions from Committee members:
- What are the core principles of Mediation Committee mediation?
- MedCom mediation is a voluntary and privileged process by which parties whom disagree on a content issue can find common ground and work towards a consensus (or at least a compromise that all parties can live with). The WordsmithCommunicate 01:08, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Discussions during formal mediation are privileged; they cannot be used against the parties in later proceedings (e.g. RfArb/RfC). Why is that important?
- If parties go into mediation with the belief that anything they say can and will be used against them in a court of public opinion, they are far less likely to be open and honest about their feelings, which leads to a much reduced chance of finding a successful resolution to a content dispute. Trust is a key issue in mediation, and without it nobody will be able to come to an agreement. As a side note, some people come to mediation with the express intent of elevating it to ArbCom, and using it as evidence of failure to resolve a dispute. Privileged communication goes a long way towards curbing this abuse of process. The WordsmithCommunicate 01:08, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What prior experience do you have in resolving disputes on Wikipedia? Please provide links, and how will these experiences help you to be an effective Committee member?
- In addition to me constantly nosing in on Talk: and Wikipedia talk: pages to propose compromises, which there are too many examples of to link (and frankly, I don't remember most of them), I have been a Cabalist Extraordinaire for a long time. I will list a few of my cases below:
- Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-11-11/War of 1812 - Here, a hands-off approach worked wonderfully, since the parties had a desire to work together, and only needed me to step in once in a while to facilitate discussion or gauge consensus.
- Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-09-04/Conversion therapy - I took a very direct, hands-on approach here since I knew a lot about the subject matter. Although this mediation failed, it would have succeeded had the problematic party been identified more quickly as a sockpuppet of a banned user.
- Talk:Dan Willis/Archive 1#Mediation was a very short dispute, that was resolved amicably. Note that that was under my previous username, Firestorm. The WordsmithCommunicate 01:08, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mediation Committee:
- Support as nom. Xavexgoem (talk) 19:56, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per nom. PhilKnight (talk) 23:18, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Daniel (talk) 01:04, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Sunray (talk) 23:00, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Community opinions:
Discussion and comments:
- I have just there submitted to the committee mailing list another reminder that this nomination is pending. Absent any change in the balance of opinion, my preliminary intention is to move to close in just over a week. AGK 22:39, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Will close in around twenty-four hours. AGK 15:13, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Decision of the Mediation Committee:
- Promoted. For the Mediation Committee, AGK 20:43, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above nomination to join the Mediation Committee is preserved as a discussion archive. Please do not modify it.