Wikipedia:Mediation Committee/Nominations/Cocoaguy 2


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

Cocoaguy
 Nominated: 01:26, 1 June, 2007 (UTC) view edit watch

I have a well kept record, i have done extensive AMA work when it was still active. Any dispute that i have been in since my last mediation committee membership request has ended smoothly. -- (Cocoaguy ここがいい contribstalk) 01:26, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: Mediation Committee/Nominations/Cocoaguy, December 31, 2006.  Daniel  11:32, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Questions from Committee members to candidate:


 * Please give links to the disputes that you have been involved in since your last nomination, as well as links to your 'extensive' AMA work.  Daniel  10:09, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure, I have done work on these AMA cases Frater Xyzzy, John Wallace Rich, jgisler596, 2ct7, Dharmaburning and my most successful Yugayuga. And the only conflict out of the AMA was Cocoabot (see Bots/Requests for approval/cocoabot). -- (Cocoaguy ここがいい contribstalk) 13:09, 2 June 2007 (UTC)


 * There are substantial differences between advocacy and mediation. How do you intend to adapt?  Thanks, Armed Blowfish (mail) 22:29, 2 June 2007 (UTC) Proxied for AB by WJBscribe
 * Advocacy is more like lawyering than conflict resolution; though Mediation is more impartial, it could be compared to a "lawsuit". -- (Cocoaguy ここがいい contribstalk) 01:22, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Also to add that mediation is to try to solve a problem, Advocacy is to advocate a user, person or issue. -- (Cocoaguy ここがいい contribstalk) 01:29, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I found this, from a couple of days ago. It makes me unsure about your knowledge of how mediation works. I would like you clarify why you believe a page being protected in the middle of dispute resolution a) helps resolve the dispute in the long-term (which is the goal of mediation), and b) helps improve Wikipedia generally. This, in my opinion, is easily linked back to the question asked by Armed Blowfish above, and I would prefer if you justified/explained it in the context of your answer. Note that this isn't an oppose at this stage; rather, it's a comment pending further information.  Daniel  11:19, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * In that case it did not seem like either users could edit that article without a view point, my comment was more towards the NPOV policy than Mediation or Arbitration. -- (Cocoaguy ここがいい contribstalk) 01:22, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Could you explain why the Cocoabot request could be considered a conflict? Martinp23 11:10, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * To revise i guess that Cocoabot was not a conflict, and more like a odd web of lies. -- (Cocoaguy ここがいい contribstalk) 01:22, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Could you please explain in more detail what you mean by "a [sic] odd web of lies" at the Cocoabot BRFA?  Daniel  07:25, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * If you look at Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive246, Bots/Requests for approval/cocoabot and Requests for checkuser/Case/Cocoabot you can tell that salad days was just trying to create an incident.  -- (Cocoaguy ここがいい contribstalk) 20:26, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Do you believe protection helps or doesn't help resolving a NPOV dispute when related to a current RfM?  Daniel  07:27, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * To some extent yes, it does help; though it is not the only way to resolve the dispute. If no one is editing a page it can be cleaned by admins, no new POV content can be added. -- (Cocoaguy ここがいい contribstalk) 20:24, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * As a follow-up to the above question, would you ever request protection at RFPP or another venue on an article which is the subject of a mediation by you?  Daniel  07:28, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * In some cases it could be deemed necessary but it would be very rare. Most of the time mediation would clear it up, if that does not work than i would suggest that it would be protected. -- (Cocoaguy ここがいい contribstalk) 20:24, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Could you discuss how you'd rate the success of the AMA cases you mention above? Martinp23 13:26, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The cases are two different to compare, many of them are frivolousness and i only closed the case. Through cases like 2ct7 and Yugayuga are very successful.  -- (Cocoaguy ここがいい contribstalk) 20:24, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I was really looking for details regarding how you feel that the cases you present to us show you as a good dispute resolver, and potential mediator. Martinp23 11:14, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * In the Yugayuga case I solved the problem quickly, though in many other cases it was just quick resoultion or getting both sides to talk to each other. -- (Cocoaguy ここがいい contribstalk) 22:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * On the Cocoabot BRFA, you claimed that you had the source. It later emerged that you did not, even after you had gained bot approval (since revoked).  Could you explian the reasons for which you seem to have mislead the community in this case? (co-question with DB :)) Martinp23 11:14, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I was not affiliated with the Bot creating process, and i made a mistake. -- (Cocoaguy ここがいい contribstalk) 22:30, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Mediation committee:
 * Oppose. I am envoking my right to private reasoning on this vote (see this). For Committee members, see our private mailing list.  Daniel  06:59, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose I haven't seen Daniel's email yet - unfortunately Google likes to mark mediation related emails as spam :(. However, I'm opposing on the basis that you don't seem to have tangible mediation experience, and that I can't honestly say I've been overly impressed by your advocacies, the answers to these questions, and other issues.  Thanks, Martinp23 07:50, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Outside opinions:

Comments:

Final Decision
 * Declined per two oppose rule
 * For the Mediation Committee, ^ demon [omg plz] 01:20, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


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