Wikipedia:Mediation Committee/Nominations/Steven Zhang


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

Nomination by Steven Zhang


Most of my editing on Wikipedis revolves around two things, editing content that interests me and helping users resolve their disputes. I get a lot of satisfaction out of helping others resolve disputes. I would like to keep doing so, and feel that joining the committee would increase my opportunities to help others in resolving their content disputes.


 * I would like to notify the committee of an incident that I was involved in on Wikipedia almost three years ago. My intentions for not initially posting a comment on the matter was not to hide the matter from the Mediation Committee, I initially thought that due to the amount of attention the matter gained from the community at the time, that the committee would be aware of it. I also thought that the matter would be brought up and discussed on medcom-l. Not wanting to open old wounds of the other users involved was also a factor. I have recently had discussions with the two administrators involved, and they are OK for me to re-discuss the matter. It was not intention to prevent scrutiny on my past actions. I will keep my explanation on the matter brief, as I wish to minimise the impact on the other administrators who have put this matter behind them, but I am willing to answer further questions on the matter if requested by members of the committee. I wish to be as open and transparent on my past actions as possible.


 * In August 2008, I was banned by the Arbitration Committee for six months, largely in part to my use of the accounts of two administrators to perform routine administrator actions, and . The full thread for the discussion is located here. When saying the actions were routine, I am not trying to justify what I did, as it is unjustifiable. I am trying to show that what I did, while immature, idiotic and stupid, was not malicious. I don't know how else to phrase it and explain the situation that occured. I can only explain my actions by saying that I was an over-eager, stupid and immature teenager who didn't think over the consequences of his actions. I feel that the three years that have passed since this incident have given me time to reflect on my actions, to grow up, and to mature as a person as a Wikipedian. I can only hope that my mistakes as a teenager can be forgiven in light of my otherwise good record on Wikipedia, and my skills in dispute resolution, but that is for the members of the committee to decide. I did not initially realise that all members of the committee were not aware of my past, and while I still personally feel I have a lot to offer the Mediation Committee, it is not my call to make. I am willing to answer any further questions members of the committee may have regarding this matter. Thank you for your consideration.  Steven Zhang  The clock is ticking....  03:59, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You say you did not initially realise that all members of the committee were not aware of your past. What brought you to this realization? Sunray (talk) 19:46, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It may have had something to do with my earlier post on Steve's talk page. AGK  [&bull; ] 20:52, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, Anthony is correct. I posted a full disclosure here as I did want the committee to be aware of everything before deciding on my candidacy, but initially did not mention it here as I was under the assumption, as I have stated above, that due to gaining such high amount of attention at the time from the community, that my history was common knowledge. It was not my intention to hide the fact from the Mediation Committee, and I apologise if it appeared to look that way initially. I feel I have given an explanation above as to my initial reasons for not posting the matter upon application, but when made aware of the fact that all Committee members may not be aware of my history, came here to post a statement on the matter. I hope this answers your questions on this matter, but feel free to ask me more questions if I have not. Cheers. Steven Zhang  The clock is ticking....  00:27, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you. While I was aware of the incident in general terms, I became concerned at your description of it and wondered if there was something more that I should know about before deciding to support your candidacy. I now think that the more you can describe it in neutral language, as observable facts, the sooner you will put it behind you. Sunray (talk) 03:22, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

@Wgfinley- While I won't comment on any of the other aspects of your vote here, I just wanted to explain why I didn't give details of my ban initially, was because I assumed that the committee was aware of all the aspects of my ban, and my history surrounding it, or that it would be brought up on medcom-l. I feel that I have given an explanation of my initial reasons above, and respect your opinion on the matter. I meant not to hide my history from the committee, I had assumed that all members of the committee were aware of my past, and I did not wish to re-open old wounds of the two admins involved. For myself, I deserve that. I chose to apply to join on the Mediation Committee, not for any prestige that may come with joining the committee, but to offer my assistance and expertise in dispute resolution. Whether the Mediation Committee feels I am suitable or not is your decision, it is not for me to decide. Thanks for your comments. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking....  04:17, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think my impression was that you were trying to hide it, more that you weren't completely forthcoming about it. To me, if you would have come out and said it happened and here's what you learned from it and here's what was wrong it would have possibly swayed me more. However, I can't help but think that two sysops lost their mops and I have seen many others indefinitely banned for less than what you did. Now they made their decisions allowing you to use their accounts but you're still partially responsible for that. I really don't want to beat you up because I think you have made a lot of contributions to WP and have done positive things since this happened and I think you could contribute on MedCab. I thought about this for a while but I just couldn't get past it, I'm sorry. --WGFinley (talk) 05:51, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I understand. I kept my comments brief as while I felt my history is a very important aspect of my nomination, that the main reason I was banned was for sharing the accounts of the two admins who resigned their mops afterwards. I left out the rest only for brevity, and that I also thought mentioning that aspect of the incident would jog the memory of anyone on the committee who had forgotten, but felt that linking to the related discussions would also give further details on the incidents at hand. I feel that I have learned a lot from what I did back in 2008, and that I am a different person to the one I was back then. For the past three years I've been dealing with the consequences of my actions, and this is my own fault. Regardless of the situation, I shouldn't have taken advantage of it. I got my friends into trouble, big time, and I betrayed the trust of so many who had faith in me at the time. I cannot reverse what I did. I would if I could, but I can't. There was so much wrong with what I did, it's hard for me to start. I used another users account, took administrative actions that the community had not elected me to make, and as a result of this made edits in the name of another user. My actions resulted in the community losing their trust in Peter and Coffee, and also in me and possibly by extension somewhat, the administrative process. All I can do is say how much I regret and how guilty I feel for tarnishing Peter and Chet's reputation, and betraying the trust of the community at the time. I ask the committee to consider if they can forgive my past mistakes and consider my abilities in diffusing difficult disputes, as while I cannot undo the damage I did three years ago, feel that I have learned from my mistakes and hope to be an asset to the committee. Thank you. Steven Zhang  The clock is ticking....  07:46, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

@Shyam: I'd be open to that suggestion. If not having complete trust or confidence in me is the issue, allow me the chance to prove myself worthy of your trust. As per all my comments, my reason for wanting to join the committee is to offer my skills in dispute resolution. Perhaps if I had a probationary membership, in that time I could take a case and prove my worth to the committee. That is all I ask for. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking....  15:35, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

@Feezo: I had forgotten about the archives to the mailing list. I feel that my other comments about my past actions in the Discussion of the candidacy section I feel explain my mistakes, and what I've learned so they won't occur again. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking....  17:14, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Questions for candidate

 * The first five questions are the 'default' questions asked of every candidate. Members of the Committee may pose further questions in this section, and should sign any questions they add.


 * 1) What are the core principles of formal mediation?
 * Formal mediation is the last step in resolution of content disputes. Mediation is where a neutral third party discusses issues that have been raised by a group of editors, and work towards forming a consensus on the issues at hand, using collaboration, negotiation and at times compromise. Mediation is a voluntary process, which requires the co-operation of parties involved for mediation to work, and does not result in binding resolution. The main objective is to assist users in resolving their disputes through discussion and collaboration between parties, not for the mediator to impose a decision.
 * While it is true that the mediator does not impose a decision, are there no circumstances in which a resolution might, in fact, be binding? Sunray (talk) 20:25, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * At the end of a mediation, after all the issues have been resolved, the mediator can discuss the option of the mediation being binding with the parties, and if they all agree, than yes, the mediation can be binding, This is important most disputes presented to the committee have been issues for quite a long time before being presented to us, the cases we handle can go for a long time (Rawat a perfect example) and generally involve long-standing issues. Proposing to the parties that the mediation can be binding can put these standing disputes to rest, and for some parties, give them more of a feeling that they actually accomplished something in the mediation.  Steven Zhang  The clock is ticking....  22:01, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The policy of the Mediation Committee is that formal mediation is as binding as the parties make it. While it would probably indicate an underlying problem if the parties violated a resolution to mediation, there is of course no provision to "enforce" a consensus reached during mediation, because mediation is not binding, and consensus can change. I can't tell if your answer reflects that. AGK  [&bull; ] 13:04, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry I didn't make myself clear. Because parties agree to mediation being binding doesn't make it enforceable, and in future, yes, consensus can change in regards to the articles and discussions in mediations. For example, perhaps a source that was discussed in the mediation for an article that was, at the time, found at the time to be reliable, but is later thought to be a poor source so a new discussion could occur on the matter. The main purpose of offering for a mediation to be binding is to give the parties a sense of achievement in what they've accomplished, not to impose a final decision on them in regards to the issues discussed. If mediation has been truly successful in resolving the issues, the issues addressed should likely not reoccur again, but if they were to, discussion could happen once more. In summary, if at the end of the mediation, parties involved agree to honour the discussions and consensus that took place in mediation, that's fine, but we aren't going to force them to do so. If they change their mind later on, that's fine too. I hope this somewhat clarifies my train of thought on this matter. Steven Zhang  The clock is ticking....  14:06, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * AGK points to the nature of consensus. Each mediation is different, but it is consensus we are after. Consensus can change, though sometimes it holds. If, for example, in the course of mediation, editors of an article reach consensus, and, (as in one case I know of), an RfC secures broad community input, the decision can be binding. It seems to me the most important principles are collaboration and consensus. Whether or not the outcome is binding is not usually our concern. Sunray (talk) 18:23, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * 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?
 * By the time disputes get to the Mediation Committee, they have quite often been under discussion for quite some time and discussions have been heated. With formal mediation being privileged, it allows editors to be open in discussions without fear of having it used against them in later dispute resolution proceedings. Without this privilege, mediation would be far less effective, as users would be more concerned about covering their backs as opposed to expressing their true opinions.
 * 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?
 * In the past, I have mediated a few MedCab cases, Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-03-17 Spore (video game), Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-04-20 Prem Rawat and Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-04-26 Joint (building). I'm most pleased with how I worked on the Prem Rawat case, while my mediation provided more structure for discussions see here, in the long term it has aided in stability on the article as well as resolution on some complex issues. Additionally, I've recently been trying to get Mediation Cabal/Cases/2011-05-28/LaRouche movement underway with little luck. MedCab has been somewhat inactive recently, partly why I have proposed a new noticeboard in the hope it would streamline the DR process. I've also helped out at Talk:Ming_Dynasty/Archive_1 and more recently, offered a third opinion on a talk page. I also somewhat assisted in two MedCom cases in the past, Rawat 3 and Rawat 4.
 * 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 would be as active as possible, but also feel that the quality of mediation is more important than how many cases you undertake at a time. I would likely take one case at a time, and focus on all my attention onto that one case.
 * 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?
 * Yes, I would be able to participate in discussions on medcom-l.

Discussion of candidacy

 * General discussion of the candidacy should go here, rather than on the talk page. Community opinions on the merits of the candidacy are especially welcome, and should be made in this section.


 * Per our Procedures, I have notified the other mediators that this nomination has been submitted. AGK  [&bull; ] 15:21, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I like Steve's answers to the questions (and asked one follow-up question). I mediated with Steve for part of the Prem Rawat marathon and found him to be conscientious and effective, though sometimes not present to the participants (which may have been an isolated situation on his part). I would be interested to hear his comment on that. Sunray (talk) 20:37, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * At the time that you referred to, off-wiki matters occured that focused my attention away from the cases I was handling at the time. Circumstances have nowadays changed. While still being an Australian, thus some of my editing will happen at times where others are offline due to time difference, I don't see this sort of inactivity occuring again. In summary, I applied to mediate on the committee because I feel that while my circumstances have changed, my skills at dispute resolution have not. Steven Zhang  The clock is ticking....  22:05, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification.Sunray (talk) 18:25, 6 June 2011 (UTC)


 * As the Chairman, I do not formally vote in candidacies. However, my own opinion, for whatever it's worth to the other mediators, is that Steve is a better editor, and a more experienced, mature person, than he was in 2008. As a Committee, we have in the past been too slow to forgive mistakes by our own members, and in my view it would be unwise to take the same approach and give significant weight to an incident from four years ago. This is one editor's view, and that of others may differ. AGK  [&bull; ] 10:47, 7 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I have some observations on the 2008 events which I would ask MedCom members to consider carefully.  In this case, 3 years ago, the core issue was that Steve was a first year editing, over-enthusiastic user, wishing to reduce wiki backlogs. He used the accounts of two admins for the purpose (who grossly misacted by allowing him use of their logins to do so), then broke a commitment with the Arbitration Committee to stay away from Wiki for a time, for which he was sanctioned via a 6 month ban.  That's public record. What has never been in question, and Arbcom accepted as likely, is that the 2008 actions were the result of over-enthusiasm for the project, albeit grossly improper. The uses of the tools via others' accounts were examined; none were found to be improper. This showed an unexpected degree of competence, care or self-imposed limitation on Steve's part. The other two admins involved, both "under a cloud" at the time, were both forgiven and resysopped long ago and carry little or no stigma from that event these days. User:PeterSymonds was resysopped by a compelling majority of 197 - 16 at an RFA just 5 months later (Jan 2009), and User:Coffee was also resysopped in light of this by Arbcom voting 10 - 0.  Steve, having never been a sysop, has felt the weight of this deed and event on his shoulders since. I have pointed out to him that by now, his long standing and obvious wish to be a positive benefit to the project in areas he is drawn to, speaks much more for the positive, than ancient history ever did for the negative. While I would not wish to cross the line from information to advocacy, I would say my personal opinion is that he is a user who has learned the hard way, the price of over-reaching. But in fact as a non-admin of the time and in a certain light, his sole wrongdoing might be described as over enthusiasm for the project, and being inappropriately persuasive in that pursuit, then grossly mishandling the unavoidable backlash, in his first year as an editor. The admin accounts were given to him, but once given were used to such standard that Arbcom could say of them, "we have no evidence pointing to inappropriate administrator actions being carried out by Steve".  There may be good reasons for any decision about membership of MedCom. But I would ask that the fact of being party to a case, whose other parties (both admins and therefore their breach the more serious) were forgiven resoundingly by Arbcom and the community some 2 years ago, should no longer be held against him. I am concerned that what he has shown consistently for 3.5 years, above all, is a wish to help the project, and apparently a reasonable capability at doing so. It would be a shame to suggest that his good wishes are wasted due to a gross misjudgment years ago. People grow up. The things he did then seem unlikely to recur. Having coaxed him that the community will allow him to live down the past as an editor, I suspect his limited mention of the case here (which I hadn't been told of in advance) was more due to gross shame of his previous actions and fear of never being allowed to live it down -- possibly not an inappropriate emotional response for a past gross mistake. I have told him that he should in fact be able to live it down. If for other reasons he is declined, may I ask that it is with suggestions how to improve his position for future? Thank you. FT2 (Talk 10:24, 10 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your comments. I am of the same opinion.  AGK  [&bull; ] 11:37, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * If it was just the admin account that was given to him I might be inclined to agree. The problem for me is the one that wasn't given at first but was taken. He should have immediately gone to the person and let him know he had the password. Instead, he used it. There were also some IRC logs forwarded if I read correctly. As a mediator we are held to a high ethical standard and duty bound to keep the confidentiality of mediation. This is a gross ethical breech I can't get past, this may sound harsh but it's how I feel. --WGFinley (talk) 14:25, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify how this all started, when Peter had accidentally typed his password into the IRC window, I did log in to the account to test if the password worked, and then informed him immediately of the fact, and at the time he allowed it to stand unchanged and to use his account to perform routine admin actions. I'm not trying to justify what I did. I should've advised Peter to change his password and left it at that. I didn't, and I should have. I don't mean to bring Peter's reputation into disrepute here, I only wish to clarify the incident. As for leaking IRC logs, I did. I'm not going to say I didn't. At the time when there was a discussion about me being banned, I panicked, and I was scrambling to save myself from being banned. Since then, I've dealt with the consequences and the stigma that goes with being a former banned user. While I was banned, I felt excluded from a project I wanted to help, which was all my own fault for being an idiot. I lost the trust and respect of those I worked with on Wikipedia, and to this day I am still trying to regain the trust of the community. I would not want to experience the exclusion and loss of trust that goes with what I did again. You don't put a knife in a toaster twice, having been electrocuted so badly the first time. All I can say is that since the time that I was banned, I learned a lot about why what I did was wrong, and dealt with the consequences of my actions, and that this is not something that will occur again. Steven Zhang  The clock is ticking....  15:03, 10 June 2011 (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 Neutral -- I will reserve judgement while I consider the additional information that Steve has provided. Sunray (talk) 06:51, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support -- I am satisfied with Steven's account of the incident in 2008. I believe it was the kind of misstep that may well occur with this relatively new project (WP) with new social norms. He has expressed his contrition and I think he can move on with our support. Sunray (talk) 03:33, 8 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Support based on user's mea culpa. Andrevan@ 01:36, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose -- Changing to oppose, at least for now. I agree with what WGFinley has said. As to Steven's clean record of conduct since the incident the difficulty with that is that there isn't much of a track record. He edited during part of 2009, but then has been mostly absent from December 2009 to May 2011. Perhaps some sustained article editing and significant MedCab exposure would enhance our confidence. Sunray (talk) 19:03, 10 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose - after a lot of thought, unfortunately, I'm unable to support Steve's nomination due to issues surrounding his ban. Normally I wouldn't go into this much detail but since I did the work to make my decision I thought I would share my reasoning.
 * 1) Steve wasn't very forthcoming about the ban and, in fact, provided only the most pedestrian of details about it above. I had to go looking because what he gave was only the initial report.
 * 2) He committed a violation that would earn most editors a lifetime ban -- WP:SOCK.
 * 3) By persuading two admins to let him use their account (one of which after he more or less stole his password) his actions resulted in them being desysopped in the matter.
 * 4) After initially accepting a 6 month ban he made repeated attempts to get the ban lifted either hismelf or through surrogates.  The requests were so repeated eventually Arbcom had to put its foot down and reiterate the terms of the ban.
 * 5) Considering these factors I'm afraid I must oppose due to 1) my concern about Steve seeking positions or prestige before he is ready for them and 2) a willful and deliberate violation of trust that could be problematic as a mediator.
 * We aren't perfect, lord knows I'm not, but this was a pretty egregious violation. I would encourage Steve to continue helping at MedCab where some help is most certainly needed. --WGFinley (talk) 02:17, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * WGFinley: Are your concerns not mitigated by Steven's clean record of conduct since the incident, which took place in 2008? AGK  [</nowikI>&bull; ] 10:02, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I considered it for a while and determined I can't. It's too against the grain for me. --WGFinley (talk) 14:19, 10 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Neutral - That incident was a quite longer ago, but was a serious issue. I support if the user can be a temporary member of MC and his behavior can be on probation, may be for a few months. Shyam  ( T / C ) 14:37, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't like the idea of "temporary" members of MedCom. We trust members or we don't; either way, they have access to the mailing list archives&mdash;that is, all previous communications to the Committee. The fact that the incident involved the misuse of privileged information is the real stumbling block to this nomination. Three years may seem like a long time in Internet-time, but it's not all that long in the real world&mdash;and misuse of privileged information can carry real world consequences. <span style="font-family: Palatino Linotype, Book Antiqua, Palatino, serif;" color="#BBAED0">Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 17:03, 10 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Conditional support - If he is accepted, he cannot use his status here at RfA or anything like that. Xavexgoem (talk) 19:21, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Decision of the Mediation Committee

 * The Chairperson of the Committee will indicate in this section what the outcome of the discussion is, before closing the nomination. Nominations last no less than ten days.


 * Not promoted, per the two-oppose rule. For the Mediation Committee, AGK  [</nowikI>&bull; ] 19:58, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * ''The above nomination to join the Mediation Committee is preserved as a discussion archive. Please do not modify it.