Wikipedia:Mediation Committee/Nominations/Theonesean


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

Nomination by Theonesean


I came to Wikipedia back in 2011, did some minor editing, some from IPs. However, recently, I have been more involved as a Wikipedian. I love the idea of a global collection of knowledge, and am interested in doing anything I can to serve it more effectively. However, during the running of this global project, people are bound to have their feet tread on. This inevitable leads to disputes, and for the more immature of us, name calling. To combat this, we have things like WP:ANI, WP:ARBCOM, and, of course, WP:MEDCOM. I would love to be able to better serve my community by using my skills to make the Wikipedia experience smoother.

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?
 * Mediation, on Wikipedia at least, is tied in with the notion of consensus. Formal mediation, or that conducted by MedCom, is a formalized process to establish consensus. Now, I hate to be "that guy," but whenever I had a dispute with someone, and a compromise is not imminent, my mom would always say, "Do you want to be right, or do you want to be happy?" Very often it isn't that clear cut, but mostly it is. Formal mediation is a method to reach a compromise between two or more parties. Collaboration and communication between all parties is needed to reach a compromise both can agree on, and, at the end of the day, be happy rather than right.
 * 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?
 * Personally, I believe a private, soundproof room, or digital equivalent thereof, encourages fruitful discussion. When you don't have a thousand potential eyes watching your every move, the urge to wikilawyer or be defensive is greatly reduced. Knowing that privacy and discretion are main tenants of mediation will lead to better discussion, better communication, and, eventually, better compromise.
 * 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?
 * I have encountered some minor disputes, mostly related to my work in the Articles for Creation process. I believe that I have handled them coolly and calmly, providing concrete suggestions for the writers to improve the articles. The main discussion I am involved in is that of coolboygcp at ANI. Briefly, he has been leniently approving articles that do not belong on mainspace. I authored an argument for his topic ban, move the discussion to ANI, and rebutted a rant by another contributor who opposed the ban. This discussion is still open, and I am still avidly watching.
 * 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?
 * If I am indeed successful, I will do everything I can to be an active mediator. As this will be the only elevated responsibility, I foresee being able to spend as much time as needed to help with mediation.
 * 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?
 * Most certainly. I check my email multiple times during the day, and am always on my phone. That shouldn't be a problem.

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.

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.


 * Oppose. Sorry that the first comment on your nomination is a negative one. In the information on the appointment process for MedCom it says that mediators should be "seasoned editors" and should be "experienced in Wikipedia dispute resolution". I would say that these recent messages on the candidate's talk page show that he has a while to go before he can make a reasonable claim to being seasoned. Wikipedia is a complicated place and it can take a long time to get fully acquainted with its processes and, especially, to absorb the underlying culture. People who look to MedCom for mediation expect the editor who is assigned to their case to be someone who "gets it" - and I don't think the candidate will inspire this level of trust without more experience. Also, I went through the candidate's contributions, and I can't see any evidence of being involved with resolving content disputes. The conduct dispute mentioned in question three is good experience, to be sure, but disputes that come to MedCom are, by and large, content disputes. I can't speak for other MedCom members, but I would expect candidates to have significant experience in dealing with content disputes before I would consider them ready to join the committee. Theonesean, you have made a great start on Wikipedia, and you are doing fantastic work at AfC, but I don't think you are ready for MedCom yet. I recommend getting involved with WP:3O and WP:DRN and applying again in not less than six months. And if you ever want any advice about dispute resolution or on Wikipedia in general, feel free to drop a message on my talk page and I'll be happy to help you out. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 10:49, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Mr. Stradivarius, thanks for your replies. I understand your concerns about the "seasoned editor" part. However, relating to those diffs, I think the important part is not the message, but my response to the message, as you can see on my talk page. You know, to be perfectly honest, I wasn't expecting to be approved on this first candidacy. It would have been a dream come true, and I would have been honoured to serve with you, but I wasn't putting any sort of major emotional investment in it. Really, my ulterior motive was not unlike that outlined in an essay (which I am unable to find) about how if you are a reasonably young editor, you should run for adminship. You probably won't get in, but it will be a valuable experience and you will get your name out there. Really what I wanted to do with this nomination was get my name out there, get some advice from some of the most well-respected Wikipedians, and contribute a little more to this great project. Thank you for your advice. If you are the only dissenter (I fear you are not), perhaps I will get on. Thanks for your advice, I can feel WP:3O and WP:DRN beckoning. If not, than I will see you when I am more "seasoned." I don't want to disappear from your view, so I may contact you if that's okay. Thanks, TheOneSean [ U &#124; T &#124; C ] 17:47, 27 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Mr. Stradivarius took the words right out of my mouth. Sean, you've got good heart and a good career ahead of you at Wikipedia, but you really need more dispute resolution experience before you come here. Let me recommend that you start with 3O, give a dozen or so opinions there, then try your hand at DRN since 3O has the least pressure and DRN's considerably more intense. Best regards, and thank you for helping to improve Wikipedia, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 18:42, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, both of you for your understanding and awesome advice. I cannot express my gratitude enough. Thank you. TheOneSean [ U &#124; T &#124; C ] 21:21, 27 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment: Without adding a pointless third oppose vote, I will say that I agree entirely with my colleagues above. I would echo their detailed and thoughtful comments, and thank the candidate for his interest in contributing to Wikipedia as a mediator. I'm sure I would support a future candidacy from Theonesean when he has had significantly more experience in successfully mediating content disputes, but it is too early at this time. AGK  [•] 22:12, 28 May 2013 (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.


 * Based on the discussion here, and taking into account the two-oppose rule, I'm closing this request as unsuccessful. PhilKnight (talk) 16:02, 29 May 2013 (UTC)


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