Wikipedia:Mediation Committee/Nominations/Peteforsyth


 * ''The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a withdrawn nomination to join the Mediation Committee.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

Peteforsyth
 Nominated: 17:38, March 31 2008 (UTC) view edit watch Your statement on why you want to be on the Mediation Committee. (Don't forget to sign with ~ .)

Questions from Committee members:
 * What are the core principles of Mediation Committee mediation?
 * Mediation is a process used when content disputes have not been resolved by talk page discussion, RfCs, or (optionally) the Mediation Cabal. Participants must have demonstrated their desire to resolve the issue by making an effort with these other methods, and must opt into the more formal mediation process. The "clout" that mediation has is entirely dependent on participants' respect for the process and for its outcome. Like any step in the dispute resolution process, mediation should (1) tend to give participants a foundation for building a respectful working relationship, or for steering clear of one another if that proves impossible; and (2) provide resolutions that are credible enough to eliminate the need for moving to the next step (in this case, ArbCom.)
 * Discussions during formal mediation are privileged; they cannot be used against the parties in later proceedings (e.g. RfArb/RfC). Why is that important?
 * Mediation is an opportunity for participants to learn about Wikipedia and other editors, but more importantly, about themselves and their relationship to the community. Learning of this kind can only take place in a safe place. In order for participants to participate in good faith and without hesitation, it's necessary that they not worry about how their words might come back to haunt them if taken out of context. Besides, the focus of mediation is on the content, not on user behavior (unlike RfC), so it's important to have a structure that respects that focus.
 * 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 believe my greatest successes to date have been in preventing disputes from devolving to the point where they need formal resolution. Lots of little disputes arise, often with new editors who seem to feel they are not being heard, or that Wikipedia's policies and guidelines are byzantine and endless. I have found the best way to interrupt this behavior is to demonstrate more productive behavior: show a little levity, offer to help someone find the info to make their case even though it's clear I disagree with them, discussing things in terms of common sense rather than resorting to policy-quoting all the time.
 * In the cases where it's been a little more formal than that, I've modeled my work after that of SwatJester in the one protracted content dispute I've been involved in, which is here. SwatJester managed to decrease the discussion's focus on individual editors by breaking up the various content disputes into sections, inviting comment on each section, and guiding the discussion in each area.
 * I attempted this in Talk:Dante's, with some positive results, though the original editor faded away rather than strongly endorsing any result.
 * I feel I played an important role in moving Talk:Mary Ramsey Wood to resolution, though it was not a formal role. This spilled over into a contentious RfA (which, unfortunately, ultimately led to the nominated party being indefinitely blocked) and other issues as well, and I feel I helped reduce the rampant incivility on all sides.
 * I participated in a major AfD debate, and think I helped refocus the discussion, pointing out that it was about a real person, and that our guidelines and policies still apply, even though many people had strong feelings on both sides because the issue was so "close to home."

I feel that my greatest skill on Wikipedia has been in helping people to function as a community, find common cause, and move past the kind of disputes that could otherwise lead to negative results. I hope to be able to continue this work with the Mediation Committee.

Mediation Committee:
 * Weak oppose - I'm worried about experience here. You are quite capable as an editor, but you don't have a lot of experience in more formal mediation areas, which makes me think you may be overstretched on the Committee. I would strongly suggest that you get involved in groups like the Mediation Cabal, and if that goes well and you enjoy the work, I would likely support a future request to join the Committee. Best of luck. Regards, Keilana | Parlez ici 22:41, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply from nominee: Quite alright, I went into this without a clear understanding of what kind of experience is desirable or expected. Thanks for the forthright response. I am happy to withdraw my nomination rather than take up more committee time, though I don't know what the best way to do that is. Any help appreciated. Also, sorry for leaving my name off the original form! -Pete (talk) 22:57, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Community opinions:

Discussion and comments:
 * This request was previously malformatted. I have corrected the code; the initial state is viewable here. Anthøny 18:44, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Decision of the Mediation Committee:
 * Withdrawn by candidate. Daniel (talk) 23:52, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


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