Wikipedia:Mediation Committee/Nominations/Atama


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

Nomination
When I started asking around for good candidates for MedCom, Atama would always come up first. All three coordinators of MedCab agree that he's one of the best we've got, as do the veteran mediators I've talked to familiar with him. His work with entrenched disputes has made way for successes that are increasingly rare these days. And if you've seen him around AN/I, you've recognized a helpful and decorous administrator.

Needless to say, Atama comes highly recommended. Xavexgoem (talk) 00:06, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Atama
 Nominated: 21:59, March 16 2010 (UTC) view edit watch In November 2009 I was given administrator tools, but since before that time I've been helping editors with dispute resolution in various places in Wikipedia, including MEDCAB, noticeboards, article talk pages, and user talk pages. I'd like to continue that role with the Mediation Committee. --  At am a  頭 21:59, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Questions from Committee members:
 * What are the core principles of Mediation Committee mediation?
 * Be impartial; don't take one side or the other, facilitate discussion between editors to reach a compromise but don't try to influence the decision or make a "ruling". Treat all editors with respect; if they lose their cool don't push back and certainly don't attack or belittle anyone. Be sure that everyone has agreed to the process voluntarily; any solutions reached through mediation are only enforceable through mutual agreement, it's up to the editors themselves to honor whatever is agreed to so it's important that a true consensus is reached and nobody is "forced" into a compromise.


 * Discussions during formal mediation are privileged; they cannot be used against the parties in later proceedings (e.g. RfArb/RfC). Why is that important?
 * Discretion helps ensure openness. If people are worried that their opinions may come back to bite them later they will be less inclined to honestly express themselves. Also, it helps discourage game-playing, where one editor in a dispute tries to "trap" another editor into saying something damaging to later bring action against them ("When did you stop beating your wife" kinds of questions).


 * 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?
 * I've been helping with MEDCAB requests for about 7 months now. Most of the mediation requests I have tried to resolve were still-born; either someone in the dispute had moved on, or not everyone agreed to the request. My first mediation attempt was a doozy, and involved mediation at a very controversial topic between two editors, which ended after 3 months of heavy editing when one member was blocked. Although that mediation "failed", and one participant was shown to have been acting in bad faith all along, I still learned a lot about how to keep a discussion productive and felt that we had come close to resolving a lot of very heated issues.


 * Another big mediation case was this one, which was discussed here. That case had actually been taken up by a previous mediator, but the participants lost confidence in his efforts and asked for another mediator, and I took it up. That mediation was ultimately successful, in that the initial dispute was resolved with a compromise that everyone agreed to. There was only one point of dispute remaining, which I realized was deadlocked between participants. I suggested an RfC to bring in outside opinion, and helped start it. Unfortunately, the overall problems with those articles continued and led to arbitration. The biggest lesson I learned with that mediation was when to let go, and I still feel that reaching a partial solution was better than no solution at all.


 * Outside of MEDCAB, I try to help people in other discussions, such as WP:ANI, and WP:COIN (I spend a lot of time at the COI noticeboard). Even on my talk pages I sometimes resolve disputes, see here for an example. Those kinds of discussions actually piqued my interest in MEDCAB in the first place.

Mediation Committee:
 * As Xavexgoem says in his nom, all three MedCab coordinators agree that Atama is one of the best MedCab mediators. As it happens, I'm not sure we agree on anything else. Anyway, I'm delighted to support. PhilKnight (talk) 00:20, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Support. Xavexgoem (talk) 00:52, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Support. I'm impressed by what I've had a chance to read. WJBscribe (talk) 21:47, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Support. Daniel (talk) 23:16, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Community opinions:

Discussion and comments:

Decision of the Mediation Committee:
 * Accept. For the mediation committee, Xavexgoem (talk) 10:39, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * ''The above nomination to join the Mediation Committee is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it.