Wikipedia:Mediation Committee/Nominations/TransporterMan

Nomination of TransporterMan

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



I am delighted to nominate TransporterMan as a candidate for the Mediation Committee. I have known TransporterMan from early in my career in dispute resolution, when we were both helping out at the dispute resolution noticeboard. I have always found him to be calm, collected, and with an excellent knowledge of policy. As well as having more than 600 edits at DRN, he is a veteran third-opinion-giver, and he was also one of the coordinators at the Mediation Cabal before it recently shut down. He has mediated in two MedCab mediations - the first one about the Non-lethal weapon article, and the second a joint mediation with myself and Steven Zhang about the Holodomor article. TransporterMan is already a seasoned mediator, and I have absolutely no doubt that he will do a fantastic job for the Mediation Committee. — Mr. Stradivarius  (have a chat) 13:42, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept the nomination. — TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 23:54, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

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 at Wikipedia is different from real-world mediation in that the primary goal of RW mediation is to reach an enforceable settlement, whereas the primary goal of WP mediation is to reach a settlement which is in the best interest of the encyclopedia. The two ultimate principles of mediation must therefore be, first, improvement of the encyclopedia, and second, aiding collaboration. Formal mediation does that by providing neutrality, structure, order, safety, and perspective, ideas, and authority. To expand on those, it is
 * - neutrality of forum and mediators;
 * - structure of discussion;
 * - behavioral order;
 * - safety and freedom of expression through privilege (and through order); and
 * - the last triad being the overlapping concepts of the perspective allowed by not being caught up in the passion of the prior discussion, fresh ideas that the parties may not have conceived, and authority (or one might say expertise) through a fairly comprehensive knowledge of WP policy, procedure, and practices.

2. 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?
 * As an attorney, the need for privileged communications is as obvious to me as the need to breathe. The need for privilege in mediation (which exists in real world court-ordered mediation as well) is most similar to parliamentary privilege and to the lesser-known, but equally-important, privilege against liability for libel enjoyed by witnesses in litigation. People do not feel free to be entirely forthcoming if what they say can be used against them at a later date. With privilege, they can lay all their cards on the table. Moreover, the privilege also helps to prevent the mediation from being derailed by being carried out in more than one forum at the same time.

3. What prior experience do you have in resolving disputes on Wikipedia, and how will these experiences help you to be an effective Committee member?
 * Except for my occasional pastime and guilty pleasure of adding geographical coordinates to articles (and, yes, I really am that dull), about all I do at WP is dispute resolution. At least by edit count, I'm the third most active participant at the Third Opinion Project and the second most active at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. (I also have training and experience in real world mediation, though there are some significant differences between that and WP mediation.) Those experiences teach discretion, perception, analysis, emotional detachment, and restraint, and I hope that I have learned those lessons.

4. 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 not accept the nomination if I were not willing to at least spend some time on mediation every day that I am online. My point of view is that most mediations are, as a practical matter, somewhere between childcare and herding cats in that they require constant attention, supervision, and guidance. The greatest strength of mediation, structure and incrementality, is one of its greatest weaknesses on short-attention-span Wikipedia. In light of that, allowing a mediation to be recessed or to stagnate, which can actually be a valuable technique in the real world in order to allow for introspection and self-evaluation, is likely to be fatal to a mediation at WP. Yes, I will take cases.

5. 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?
 * Absolutely and, indeed, will look forward to it.

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.


 * I've been around second stage content dispute resolution (DRN, 3O) for some time now, so I witnessed multiple occasions of TransporterMan's dealing with disputes. I was particularly impressed with the fact that he managed to resolve disputes without judging editors' arguments (as opposed to common practice in DR forums). Instead he explained the applicable policies and guidelines in a way that both dramatically reduced ambiguity and focused involved editors on application of these policies in their particular dispute. Overall I got the impression that TransporterMan is ways more effective in dispute resolution then most of other volunteers. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 02:07, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * TransporterMan possesses the ideal qualities that the Committee seeks, in my opinion. I wish him the best. Steven   Zhang  Help resolve disputes! 10:30, 14 August 2012 (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. AGK  [•] 12:18, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Support as nominator. — Mr. Stradivarius  (have a chat) 12:53, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. Lord Roem (talk) 15:04, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. PhilKnight (talk) 21:01, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Total support Xavexgoem (talk) 15:38, 14 August 2012 (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.

Nomination successful, welcome to MEDCOM TransporterMan, instructions on your talk page. Congratulations! For the committee, WGFinley (talk) 01:24, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * ''The above nomination to join the Mediation Committee is preserved as a discussion archive. Please do not modify it.