Wikipedia:Mediation Committee/Nominations/Deskana

Add links
Source: 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.

Deskana

Nominated:
02:00, August 24 2007 (UTC)
view edit watch

Deskana (talk · contribs) I am applying to help as a mediator for several reasons. I believe I can act as a calming voice of reason in any mediation cases I'm involved in. I'm well versed in Wikipedia's policies, and I am an administrator (nom), bureaucrat (nom) and checkuser, so have quite a bit of the community's trust. I don't forsee myself being the most active mediator, but I can probably manage at least one case at any time (maybe more), and I feel that my services will be an asset for the Committee.

Questions from Committee members:

  • What are the core principles of Mediation Committee mediation?
    • The process is voluntary. This assures that the mediation will be as fruitful as is possible, as if everyone is willing, they will not disrupt the mediation, and will take part to the best of their ability. This also ensures all parties will respect the final result of the mediation, despite the fact it is not binding. Also, the process can be confidental, if required. This assists in keeping a good atmosphere where mediation can be successful. Mediation discussions are privileged, meaning whatever parties say cannot be used against them in later proceedings, such as arbitration.
  • 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 people are unable to speak freely during the mediation, then the process cannot be used to maximum benefit. By assuring parties that they will not be held liable for anything they say, they will speak more freely, ensuring the best result from medation possible.
  • 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?
    • People quite frequently use me as a form of informal mediation, by coming to my talk page and asking for assistance. For instance, both User:John Smith's and User:Giovanni33 used me as an informal mediator between the two of them, before their formal mediation request was handled. As an older example, a month or so before I was made an admin, I attempted to smooth things over between two users, archive here. It's probably worth noting that Robsteadman was frequently hostile to me, but I still tried helping him. Also of note is the recent case of User:Oldwindybear using sockpuppets. After promoting Oldwindybear to adminship per his RfA, I started to see signs that he was using sockpuppets. I originally just asked him if it was true, since there was no point in being hasty. Once Stillstudying (the suspected sock) started getting abusive in his own right, I asked for help from others in assessing the situation. A request for checkuser was filed, which returned unrelated. I apologised to Oldwindybear for the accusation, but in the end it turned out that I was right, see this and this. He later e-mailed me asking that I delete his userpage, which I was happy to do for him [1].
  • Additional questions from Anthøny ん;
  • (1). Where an RfM you have volunteered to Mediate is being actively disrupted by non-Parties (for example, incivil replies to listed Parties' statements, blatant attacks on Parties, and so on), what steps would you take to counter this?
  • I'd almost certainly remove the comments first. I'd also ask the person to stop disrupting it. Chances are that anyone disrupting a mediation page is just acting inappropriatly without realising they're not supposed to do it. Asking them to stop first is a reasonable solution. If they insist they must be involved, then I would consider adding them as a party, with the permission of the other parties. If they continue senselessly disrupting the mediation process and rejecting all compromises and middle grounds I offer for their participation in mediation, they can be blocked for disruption per the blocking policy, but it'd take quite a bit for it to come to that. This reminds me of what Jimbo says: "Anyone who just complains without foundation, refusing to join the discussion, I am afraid I must simply reject and ignore. Consensus is a partnership between interested parties working positively for a common goal". This is particularly relevant here.
  • Follow up question: there are also other options available to the Mediator, which would prevent a disruptive user from accessing the Mediation. Could you describe these? (Apologies for being vague, but if I wasn't it would be too easy :) Anthøny ん 20:35, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's no requirement that the mediation be held onwiki, as long as all principles of mediation are upheld. If someone refuses to stop disrupting mediation and (for whatever reason) blocking is not appropriate, the parties can move the mediation off to IRC/e-mail/MedCom wiki or other appropriate medium. --Deskana (apples) 21:06, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • (2). Taking that same situation, but substituting disruption by a non-Party with disruption by a user listed as a Party on the Case Page, what would your actions be in this situation? For clarification purposes, the Party's attitude is causing the Mediation to detoriate, and all attempts at reasoning are having no effect.
  • Again, I would ask them to stop, reminding them that the mediation needs to be neutral ground for it to be successful. However, if one party continued to repeatedly disrupt the mediation, I would terminate the mediation case. Mediation must be voluntary and not contain attacks in order to be successful. I'd probably recommend arbitration at that point, as if the party refuses to submit to mediation, it's unlikely that there's much else that can be done.
  • Great answer, Deskana. You've raised all the points I was hoping you would - the Mediator's ability to pass a case along to the MedCom's Sister Commitee, as well as pointing out that if a user does not agree to Mediation (whether that be communicated through their disagreement on the case page, or disruptive behaviour during the Mediation) then "forcing" them is never an option - i.e., that Mediation is voluntary. Anthøny ん 20:59, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation Committee:

Outside opinions:

Comments:

Outcome:

Appointed.
For the Mediation Committee, Daniel 04:45, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above nomination to join the Mediation Committee is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Mediation_Committee/Nominations/Deskana&oldid=1089912171"