Wikipedia:Mediation Committee/Nominations/MBisanz


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

MBisanz
 Nominated: 00:59, June 27 2008 (UTC) view edit watch I'd like to nominate Matt to join the committee. He's been an administrator for quite a few months now showing he has the communities trust (he hasn't had any problems so far anyway!). As far of solving disputes - he's quite a regular on the admin noticeboards, always adding a voice of reason into debates and stopping them esculating. He's got substantial experience with the mediation cabal and has helped them solve a number of disputes. Last month he mediated a case for us (Requests for mediation/Peter Yarrow) and brought it to a successful ending. If you take a look at the case, you'll see he's a calm guy and isn't phased by disputes - he makes sure he understands disputes before walking into them, and then offers sound advice to all parties. Hopefully everyone will understand his ability to mediate cases and support this request.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  00:59, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Questions from Committee members:
 * What are the core principles of Mediation Committee mediation?
 * The core principles of mediation are that it is voluntary, privileged, content focused, impartial, and participant driven. This means that all parties must agree to mediate a matter, that the Medcom discussions cannot be used in other forums such as RFC/RFAR, that the Mediator must take an impartial position with regard to the matters being discussed, that only content and not behavior is discussed, and that solutions are only reached through all parties working together to resolve their differences.
 * Discussions during formal mediation are privileged; they cannot be used against the parties in later proceedings (e.g. RfArb/RfC). Why is that important?
 * Parties in mediation may make offers of compromise as to their position on content, if these offers can be brought up later as a sign of flip-flopping, they may be less likely to make such offers, and hinder the mediation process. Also, individuals are encouraged to be honest as to their positions and beliefs in mediation, if those beliefs could be cited later in behavioral dispute resolution proceedings, it would hamper the free flowing nature of the mediation process.
 * 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?
 * At the request of the MedCom I mediated Requests for mediation/Peter Yarrow to a successful conclusion of a stable article version that complied with relevant policies.


 * I mediated Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-01-07 Bates method which resulted in a no-decision due to the inability of the parties to focus on content.


 * With, Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-01-18 Political positions of John Edwards resulted in early closure due to a party declining to participate in the process.


 * Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-01-19 Australian rules football was closed as at an impasse due to party bickering, later one of the parties began attacking and harassing me for mediating the matter, resulting in an indef block on his account at enwp, commons, meta, itwp, eswp, and a current debate at simple-wp.


 * I participated in setting up the formatting of Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-03-18 Second Intifada and some initial efforts, and handed it over to Steve Crossin when it appeared the parties were at a deadlock and needed fresh assistance.


 * I believe these experiences have prepared me for service on MedCom by giving me a firm understanding of the Mediation process at its best and its worst. Some of these cases showed where individuals could overcome internal prejudice in the interests of writing an accurate article, others showed the worst in editors, with threats of violence, non-participation boycotting, etc, so I've seen a good spectrum of what I imagine mediators would see in cases.  Thank you again Ryan for your nomination.


 * How would you describe your mediation style, and what do you think makes you a good mediator?
 * Interesting question, I would say I have a very deliberate style of mediation. I usually start off by defining the issues to be mediated.  Frequently the parties will include things they want done at the Request for Mediation.  Sometimes these are things that cannot be done, such as "Do this process so we can go to arbcom" or "protect a final version of the article".  So I start off by defining that "I see issues X, Y, and Z as what we can work on".  Then I usually ask the parties for opening general feelings on the topic at hand.  I may ask targeted questions such as how interested they are in the field, if they feel they have extensive knowledge, of it, etc.  Then I try to open a discussion on each issue to be mediated, starting with the one that appears the easiest to solve.  So for instance, if the mediation involves disputes over the title, the lead, and a picture caption, I would first ask that we discuss the caption, since the odds are greatest of solving a simple problem and building trust to tackle harder matters.  I tend to ask that each party present their version of what the final product should be, citing why it conforms to policy, etc.  Then I ask them to discuss among themselves the differences.  Sometimes I'll suggest a method they can try, such as dividing a section, finding more sources, expanding other material, etc, with the aim of them realizing that the matter at hand isn't really in dispute, just its place in the article is in dispute.  If the parties can't agree on Issue X, I might put it on hold and move to Issue Y.  If they can't agree on any issue, I might suggest we take a cool down break for a week or so or try a different approach to discussion, such as trying to find things they like about the other versions, etc.


 * I think I am good at mediation since I have rather narrow interests and tend to know what topics I would be biased at mediating. Also, at the end of the day, Wikipedia is a volunteer project to me, I have a real life job, other hobbies, etc, so I tend not to become emotionally invested in a matter.  To me mediation is a means to an end of achieving a stable article that the community feels complies with policy.  Even if the end result looks weird to me, or is something I might not write on my own, I really don't care, since my goal is helping them resolve a dispute, not enforcing my views or opinions.


 * What qualities do you have that you think make you a bad mediator, and how have you worked around these in the past?
 * One quality that I find difficult is understanding the history of certain issues. Many cases come to MedCom because they have failed at RfC, 3O, EA, and sometimes even MedCab or ANI.  Separating the actual content dispute material from the invective that parties bring to the matter is something I struggle with.  I have tried to work around it in the past by focusing on the article-centric prior attempts, such as the article talk page, instead of the drama-laden parts of the dispute, such as ANI threads.


 * What is your aim on wikipedia and indeed within wikimedia? How do you plan to achieve these goals (would you like to be on arbcom, for example? What are you aiming for?)?
 * My aim on WP and at WM is to serve as a volunteer in whatever capacity that the community desires me to and that I feel I am capable of serving in. I know, for instance, that I will never be a Featured List Director, since content composition is not my strongest area.  I like doing some interesting business-related DYKs in the future and do have a couple of corporate architecture ones that I intend to do, but sadly I will never be a prodigious FA writer.  Also, I know I will probably never apply to be a steward, since I find foreign languages hard to learn and that job is best served by those with experience in other languages.


 * Referring to Wikimedia, yes, I ran for the board this last year. By profession, I am an accountant with experience in non-profit grant administration, etc, so I felt that to be an area in which I could offer my outside skills to aid the community.  Also, I have external experience in dispute resolution in a variety of forms.  I have in the past used that knowledge to help at MedCab.  I'd like to now expand and help at MedCom.  While many people see MedCom is being a level-up from MedCab, they are both dispute resolution forums that are equally vital to the community.  To that extent, I see MedCab, MedCom, and Arbcom as ends to themself.  There is no plan to level-up from one to another, since each requires different skill sets and different types of participation.  So, what I am aiming for is to be a Wikipedia editor.


 * I never thought I'd run a bot until I used AWB a lot and realized I could use it for certain automated tasks. I never thought I'd be nominated for MedCom until I did some MedCabs, realized I liked helping people resolve disputes, and that I had skills in both informal and formal content dispute resolution.  To wrap up, someday I might like to serve on arbcom, but I don't feel confident at this time that I have the historical knowledge of the community matters handle to run, nor do I have the technical knowledge to interpret and judge things like Checkuser.  I don't think serving on MedCom will help me build those skills, anymore than being an administrator makes one more qualified to serve on MedCom, so right now I am pretty happy aiming for doing my best in those things I am good at right now, not trying to find ways to get to do things I would not be good at.  Thanks again for asking some insightful and useful questions.

Mediation Committee:
 * Support as nominator - Matt is a good guy and would do well in the role.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  01:01, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Support - Matt has an excellent track record in mediation and general common sense. Shell    babelfish 06:50, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Level headed and not bound by preconceptions. KillerChihuahua?!? 22:59, 28 June 2008 (UTC) Neutral. Concerns about Sense, Priorities. KillerChihuahua?!? 19:33, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Support, certainly qualified, even though we have an awful lot of mediators right now. Wizardman  00:10, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Neutral, some residual concerns remain regarding some of this users' comments on IRC during the board elections period, but otherwise he's a good mediator. I hope Matt realises that many found his comments awkward and he doesn't make similar comments into the future, in addition to the issues already privately discussed with him regarding use of banners. Daniel (talk) 01:14, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Neutral, As per Daniel. Shyam  ( T / C ) 09:05, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Neutral (leaning oppose?????) but need to think more about it. Martinp23 19:49, 17 July 2008 (UTC) I think this vote may be best counted as an opposition, if the following reasoning makes sense.  I originally voted neutral here because I felt that while I couldn't truly say "Yes, this user should be on MedCom", I lacked the confidence in my convictions to make a solid opposition.  I don't like sitting on the fence, and so I've been pushing myself to come to a conclusion to the binary question: Should MBisanz be on MedCom.  The answer from my must be a no at this time.  Matt has told me in the past (around the BLP Special Enforcement case) that he is a process wonk.  While I don't want to have to use this frankness against him, I feel that such a statement is very much supported by his recent contributions and of course his longer record.  I think Matt's time is better invested elsewhere.  I lingering worry I have, as unfounded as it may be, is that Matt is looking for membership of MedCom such that he may have another feather in his hat - I think I could perhaps back this up by pointing to the line in his board nom where he mentions the fact that he has helped with cases.  That is to say, I worry that he is using medcom as a way on to bigger and better (?!) things, such as ArbCom, Steward or Board.  I do also echo the comments of Icewedge below.  Thus the best I can do at the moment is oppose in good faith and hope that Matt can go on to help out where his skills may be put to better use on this project. Uncertainly, Martinp23 21:27, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I think Matthew is a trustworthy user, but I think MedCom is a poor fit for him at this time. Oppose.  Ral315 (talk) 04:51, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The issues highlighted by Daniel regarding "awkward communication", etc., are a little concerning... However, I'm not sure whether the specific references are isolated incidents, or part of a wider pattern. Either way, I do hope that MBisanz takes the issues into consideration for the future: being trusted by the community (which does, after all, serve as a pool of editors from which parties will come) is made all the easier by good communication, and I would expect that from any MedCom nomination candidate. In Matt's case, I believe I can fairly firmly say that he holds this trust, and will be able to function as a mediator for the disputes the MedCom is faced with. Furthermore, from what I have observed of his work on Wikipedia, I believe he possesses the expertise required to diffuse a dispute, and build towards an agreement between parties. In short, although I acknowledge the concerns presented, I believe MBisanz is trusted and does possess the necessary communication skills; similarly, I believe he is competent enough to join the committee in a mediator capacity. Although I would encourage him to exercise caution and "take things slowly" should this nomination be successful and Matt join the MedCom, I do look forward to working alongside him. Best regards, and do take the time to work on those issues... Anthøny  12:29, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * To clarify, this vote is a support. Anthøny  14:43, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Community opinions:
 * Has the right experience for the job and is very trustworthy. I can support this. Acalamari 23:23, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Endorse. Appropriate experience in mediation, always willing and capable of providing a reasoned voice to disputes. Rudget   ( logs ) 19:22, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Matt is an awesome user but I don't know, he just does not seem like a mediator too me. He seems to like and be good at making decisions, not compromises. The ArbCom might be be better place for him. - Icewedge (talk) 19:23, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, I agree with Icewedge that MedCom may not be best suited to the candidate's strengths. —Giggy 23:11, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Per Martin. —Giggy 00:14, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Discussion and comments:
 * Just a note that I am willing to answer additional questions publically or privately should anyone desire more information/assurances on anything.  MBisanz  talk 00:03, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment to AGK @  MBisanz  talk 16:12, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, I see MedCom as an end for me, not a stepping stone for other areas of Wikipedia. Mediating is something I like to do and something that I am apparently good enough at to work effectively at Wikipedia, I would not seek to use it to "level up" to other positions, the comment at the Boardvote was probably short-sighted on my part, trying to compile a list of all the ways I have contributed to the WM community and is the sort of statement I would avoid making in the future. Thank you all again for taking the time to review and consider my record.  MBisanz  talk 02:12, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Decision of the Mediation Committee: Not promoted per the two oppose rule.
 * For the Mediation Committee, Daniel (talk) 10:08, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * ''The above nomination to join the Mediation Committee is preserved as a discussion archive. Please do not modify it.