Wikipedia:Mediation Committee/Nominations/Milk's Favorite Cookie


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

Milk's Favorite Cookie
 Nominated: 17:50, March 1 2008 (UTC) view edit watch Hello everyone. I would really love to resolve disputes, and I have resolved some so far, so that is the reason why I would like to be in the Meditation Committee. Since my time here on Wikipedia, I have piled up over 20,000 edits, and I hope soon to become an administrator. - Milk's  Favorite  Cookie  17:50, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Questions from Committee members:
 * What are the core principles of Mediation Committee mediation?
 * The core principles of the Committee is to:
 * Put an end to disputes
 * To assist an current dispute

Mediation Committee:
 * Discussions during formal mediation are privileged; they cannot be used against the parties in later proceedings (e.g. RfArb/RfC). Why is that important?
 * Keeping in mind that Meditation is not binding, editors must be open in regards to there concerns, or they could cause another Dispute.
 * 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?
 * A good amount. For example this user violated several 3RR violations, and caused a large dispute between several editors on Garage Kids. She removed notices several times, that were given to her, not being Civil or assuming good faith. I'm also currently trying to resolve a dispute. - Milk's  Favorite  Cookie  17:50, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Could you point to previous experience that you have in solving disputes?  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  02:54, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Ryan. I can barely think of anything else. However, here is a second dispute that I'm trying to resolve, which I came upon today. It looks like both editors have came to a conclusion. So I can call that resolved.
 * Sorry, I should have elaborated - have you got any previous experience in official stages of dispute resolution?  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  03:06, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * None, other than the above mentioned. - Milk's  Favorite  Cookie  21:02, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Neutral. It does not appear that, at the present moment, you have a sufficient understanding of the spirit, and, indeed, the letter, of the Mediation policy. Similarly, it does not appear you have a volume of experience in Mediation, either formal or otherwise, or indeed in any form of dispute resolution. Insofar as I can see, I don't believe that your addition to the MedCom would benefit the parties we serve... I am reluctant to oppose so early into your nomination—it may be you have a response to my concerns, or what not. At the moment, however, I am leaning towards oppose. AGK (contact) 07:52, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose, no prior experience in structured dispute resolution related to content. No prejudice to a further nomination in a couple of months should the candidate have sufficient experience (either with the Mediation Cabal or another structured dispute resolution avenue). The step from informally trying to sort out a dispute on your user talk page (which you appear to have done successfully, to your credit), to a formal mediation case with truly established users and ingrained points of view, is too great and requires a totally different skillset. As I say, this isn't a "I think this guy lacks the personality traits to be a good mediator oppose"—on the contrary, there seems to be some distinct "potential" (for want of a better word)—but rather a "Unfortunately, your inexperience with structured dispute resolution means I cannot support" reluctant oppose. Daniel (talk) 00:54, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Thank you for offering to help out, but I do not think you have enough experience at present. The Committee looks for potential mediators to have both a high level of community trust - often demostrated by RfA - and subtantial experience of resolving disputes on Wikipedia. Exceptional candidates who are not administrators have joined the Committee but we would be looking for a solid track record of resolving content disputes on Wikipedia, which you don't presently have. I strongly suggest involvement with the mediation cabal as a means of getting that experience. Alternatively, watching for requests for page protection due to content disputes at WP:RFPP can be a good indicator of where assistance in resolving disagreements may be welcomed. If you are still interested in formal mediation having gained that experience, we would welcome another nomination at some point in the future. WjBscribe 12:38, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Community opinions:
 * I support. New blood is good.  Mønobi 17:53, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Support - he has helped me resolve things at times, and I think this would be good for him.   jj137   (talk)  02:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Discussion and comments:

Decision of the Mediation Committee:
 * Application declined, per the two oppose rule. For the Mediation Committee, AGK (contact) 15:46, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * ''The above nomination to join the Mediation Committee is preserved as a discussion archive. Please do not modify it.