Wikipedia:Mediation Committee/Nominations/Thebirdlover

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of an unsuccessful nomination to join the Mediation Committee. Please do not modify it.

Thebirdlover (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I have been on this project for one year and I have helped out on vandalisim cases and sockpuppet investigations such as AshleyBird1. I have given out cookies to really nice editors and if I am elected each member of the commite will get a barnstar. Note:edit's after my original will be signed

The first five questions are the 'default' questions asked of every candidate. Members of the Committee may pose further questions in this section, and should sign any questions they add.

1. What are the core principles of formal mediation?

   The core principles of the formal mediation and the committe in general are as a friend of mine says "to take a chill pill". It gives the people who need mediation time to relax.

   Q: What of the principles that underly the preconditions of formal mediation, such as that mediation is voluntary, must only relate to article conduct, and so on? AGK [•] 22:06, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You normally have to satisfy a certain number of conditions such as you caqn't have an arbiration case and if you have a sucessfull RFC or Med Cabal case a mediation commite case isn't needed. --Thebirdlover (talk) 23:08, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1. Discussions during formal mediation are privileged, in that they cannot be used against the parties in later proceedings (such as Arbitration or a Request for comments). Why is it important that this is so?

   It's kind of like the Double Jeporady rule in that no person can be tried twice for one crime.

   Q: That is not the answer that most candidates give, and is probably not one that demonstrates an understanding of why the privileged nature of mediation is important (which is namely that it prevents good-faith comments made during mediation from being used against that editor in any subsequent arbitration or request for comments proceedings that might try to 'punish' an editor for simply opposing consensus). AGK [•] 22:06, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation in a way, is different from Arbiration and RFC and it would cause needless confusion if you could accuse people of what they said unless they said something like "I have created a VandalBot." --Thebirdlover (talk) 23:12, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1. What prior experience do you have in resolving disputes on Wikipedia, and how will these experiences help you to be an effective Committee member?

   I have been around the wiki and I have researched info about banned users on here and on ED which (suprisingly) has a lot of info about wiki vandals including stuff wikipedia long deleted.

   Q: Have you been active in the mediation cabal, or have you any other experience in actually resolving content disputes? AGK [•] 22:06, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2. If your nomination is successful, how active do you anticipate in being as a Committee member? Unless you are appointed to serve in another capacity, such as on the Arbitration Committee, will you be mediate a case at least occasionally?

   It depends when you want me but I could come on for at least one case every 1 1/2 months.

3. If appointed to the Committee, will you be willing to subscribe to the Committee's private mailing list, to regularly lead the (small number of) e-mails that are exchanged over the mailing list each month, and actively participate in discussions?

   I do not have a email adress so all mediation I do would have to be on one of the parties talk pages or on the Mediation page.

   Q: The question is asking if you are available for off-wiki discussion about internal Committee matters, the nature of which vary greatly but are often not suitable for on-wiki discussion. It is not asking you to mediate cases by e-mail. AGK [•] 22:06, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

General discussion of the candidacy should go here, rather than on the talk page. Community opinions on the merits of the candidacy are especially welcome, and should be made in this section.

• In line with procedure, I have notified the other members of the Committee that this nomination has been filed (by means of an e-mail to the mailing list), so some participation should begin within the next few days. AGK [•] 13:04, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Thebirdlover's responses to the basic questions don't give much on which to decide on this candidacy. I would like to read answers to AGK's follow-up questions. Sunray (talk) 17:31, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Members of the Committee should support or oppose the nomination in this section, with a rationale if appropriate. If a candidacy attracts two or more votes, it will be declined.

Oppose, a year in editing is a bit green for me and some of the answers above were a bit odd (especially no email?). I might reconsider if some of AGK's follow-ups above were answered. --WGFinley (talk) 14:35, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Needs more experience in Medcab and/or 3O, etc. Xavexgoem (talk) 15:16, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per above and non-answers to questions. Andrevan@ 19:47, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Chairperson of the Committee will indicate in this section what the outcome of the discussion is, before closing the nomination. Nominations last no less than ten days.

• Unsuccessful, per the two-oppose rule. For the Mediation Committee, AGK [•] 12:20, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above nomination to join the Mediation Committee is preserved as a discussion archive. Please do not modify it.