Wikipedia:Mediation Committee/Nominations/ItsZippy

Nomination of ItsZippy

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



Please allow me to present ItsZippy as a candidate for the Mediation Committee. I first noticed ItsZippy after he started helping at the dispute resolution noticeboard in October 2011, where he gave great advice right from his very first edit. He is a natural at dispute resolution, and is skilled at listening to parties' concerns and de-escalating conflict. He also has a thorough understanding of Wikipedia policy, as you would expect from an editor who was elected to be an administrator in April 2012. ItsZippy has been active at Third opinion and has also been involved in two cases at the Mediation Cabal, on the Iraqi Turkmens and Falklands War articles. The Falklands War case in particular shows a constructive attitude to mediation and showcases ItsZippy's ability to negotiate solutions to complex disputes. He would make a fine mediator for MedCom. — Mr. Stradivarius  (have a chat) 14:42, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Yep. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 15:57, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Questions for candidate

 * Candidate: Please answer these five questions. Members of the Committee: To pose an additional question, add it to the bottom of this section, and append your signature.


 * 1) What are the core principles of formal mediation?
 * Put simply, the role of the Mediation Committee is to facilitate voluntary discussion between parties to achieve a consensual resolution, which will ideally be acceptable to all and sustainable in the long-term. This obviously means that the Mediation Committee must remain impartial in disputes, not acting in support of one party (or viewpoint). The voluntary nature of mediation is also important because we are trying to find solutions that will resolve a dispute and lead to future stability: if one side is not happy with a resolution, or if a resolution has to be enforced, we are much less likely to see stability (or stability would have to be enforced through sanctions, which is much less desirable). Formal mediation must not undercut other wider policies, processes or consensuses on Wikipedia; the role of mediation is not to allow people to force through their own opinions, but come to a resolution involving all parties. Finally, mediation must have limits: disputes bogged down in complaints about conduct will never get off the ground, and there must always be a willingness from all parties to achieve a solution which may require compromise on their part. Formal mediation must recognise these limits to avoid pursuing disputes which it cannot resolve itself.
 * 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?
 * If discussion in formal mediation may be used as evidence, it disincentives the whole process. If someone's comments might later be used against them, they have good reason to keep them to themselves; without everyone's opinions on the table and open for discussion, they may well be hidden views or agendas which are not discussed. People need to feel assured that their comments will not be used against them, otherwise they will less willing to participate.
 * 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?
 * Mr. Stradivarius has summed up a lot of my experiences above: I have spent a good deal of time at the DRN and giving third opinions, and served for a short time at MedCab. I have been less active recently at these 'official' mediation more recently (I've not participates at the DRN for a little while); however, my work as an admin has meant that I am regularly communication with users in a quasi-mediator role. For example, I managed to deal with various reports about the same users and the same issue at ANI and EWN to bring them together, and get them to agree to formal mediation (this case). All of these experiences will inform my approach to mediation, both the skills (communication, and getting people to talk to one another), and being able to recognise certain kinds of dispute (geopolitical issues, for example).
 * 1) 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 mediate a case at least occasionally?
 * I intend to be active, yes. I will be going to University in October, which will probably have an effect on my activity levels and I don't know how that will change my editing. Before then I will certainly be active in mediating. If my activity patterns change, or I can foresee a period of inactivity, I will let the committee know.
 * 1) If appointed to the Committee, will you be willing to subscribe to the Committee's private mailing list, to regularly read the (small number of) e-mails that are exchanged over the mailing list each month, and actively participate in discussions?
 * Yep.


 * Question to candidate from Xavexgoem:
 * 1) How important is compromise? Are there cases where compromise is not possible, or is not the best option? Do all parties need to compromise? Xavexgoem (talk) 15:36, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Compromise will often be necessary in a dispute because, where there are two opposing views, both parties cannot both have their own way. Often, compromise will be necessary on both parts - you need to give a little to get a little - and should be encouraged if it is likely to lead to a resolution. There may be cases where other issues - an important Wikipedia policy, for example - will affect the nature of the compromise. As will any outcome of mediation, a compromise should still respect the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia, even if those involved all agree. Where one party is demanding something less acceptable (in a BLP dispute, perhaps), it would be important to ensure that mediation does not undermine any other key aspects of Wikipedia; nevertheless, where compromise will not be damaging, it can still be useful in bringing resolution. Each case will be different; generally compromise is useful, but judgement must be made on the merits of each case.
 * Thank you for your reply. Xavexgoem (talk) 14:16, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Discussion of candidacy

 * General discussion of the candidacy should go here, not the talk page. Input from editors who are not members of the Committee is still very welcome.


 * In Q3, you say "I served for a short time at MedCom". Do you mean at MedCab? AGK  [•] 12:08, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Whoops, you're right. I'll fix that. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 19:12, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I just wanted to make sure :-). AGK  [•] 20:32, 12 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Per this policy, are you willing to mediate one of our unassigned cases? AGK  [•] 20:32, 12 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I'd be happy to. Any in particular you'd like me to handle? ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 20:41, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I conferred with my colleagues, and we would prefer you to take Corporals killings. However, the choice is entirely yours. Please let me know which case you would like, then I will ask the disputants to agree to you as their mediator. (We typically prefer to consult them before assigning a mediator who is not an appointed member.) AGK  [•] 22:20, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, that sounds fine. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 20:02, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * As is customary, I've asked the parties to consent to you (as a current non-member) being assigned to the case. Once all the disputants respond, I'll let you know, and hopefully the case can be all yours. AGK  [•] 23:02, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, thank you. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 10:52, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Corporals Killing is closed. More than half the editors were topic banned at AE for a minimum of 3 months. Xavexgoem (talk) 13:43, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I think AGK said that Autobiography of a Yogi was possible. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 15:02, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Excellent. I'll ask their permission. Xavexgoem (talk) 17:01, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

It's looking like Yogi is stale. We're going to wait until a new case comes up. --Xavexgoem (talk) 02:25, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, that's alright. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 15:11, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Voting

 * 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 oppose votes, it will be declined.


 * Support. -- Lord Roem (talk) 21:51, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Neutral. While the candidate appears promising, I am struggling to find evidence of substantial experience in dispute resolution. The two mediation cases cited above both ended rather abruptly (one because a party was blocked as a sock-puppet, and the other due to party inactivity). Experience on the DR Noticeboard might demonstrating that the candidate is a strong mediator, but again the evidence available there is limited because ItsZippy only has fifty or so edits to that noticeboard. I worry that the candidate is not quite ready to mediate the type of detailed, long-running disputes that we see in formal mediation, but will hold my vote until my colleagues and ItsZippy have had the opportunity to opine. AGK  [•] 12:26, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Support as nominator. — Mr. Stradivarius  (have a chat) 12:53, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Neutral per AGK. Will wait for the trial run. Added a question above, too. Xavexgoem (talk) 15:41, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Decision of the Mediation Committee

 * The Chairman will post the outcome of the nomination in this section. Nominations last no less than ten days.

Nomination is successful, welcome to MEDCOM It'Zippy, instructions are on your talk page. Congratulations! On behalf of the committee, WGFinley (talk) 01:14, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * ''The above nomination to join the Mediation Committee is preserved as a discussion archive. Please do not modify it.