Wikipedia:Mediation Committee/Nominations/Voice of All(MTG)


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

Voice_of_All(MTG)
Withdrawn by candidate.

. I have often made edits and used the talk pages for contraversial subjects such as Ted Kennedy/Ray Nagin/George Bush, Abortion-related articles and various NPOV tagged articles with ongoing bickering. I think that I have done a good job so far in staying civil and preventing unneeded frustration. Currently, I am mediating(and being a second-opinion) the Neuro-Linguistic Programming article(where is Sasquatch :-)?). Sometimes, it is hard to find articles Talk pages needing mediation, so joining the comittee will help me find them(or have them forcefully assigned ;)...). Also, there seem to be very few active mediators, so figured that you could use more.

I do somewhat disagree with "Mediators are not there to protect an article or talk pages and will not watch for improper behavior or violations of rules or guidelines." If a serious revert war starts up, then protecting the page is the right thing to do regardless, that will force the users to talk again. I am not going to give people a "total free-pass" on vandalism/edit wars, but I would not admonish or block(except in the most exreme of cases imaginable) them either, I would simply protect the page temporarily in such cases; there is no need to let edit wars go out of control, as the stress levels will go up as well.

I will read up on all of the talk and make suggestion and compromises. I may do research myself if needed or if I like the topic itself enough, but I will not pick sides or act as a "private investigator". If two internal opposing views exits within a topic's relavant community, and the "sides" involved want to pick on or the other, then a comprimise can likely be made noting both positions on the topic(such as "followers of religion A believe B" can become "while most/some followers of religion A believe B, some instead, believe C".

''' Judging from the kind of oppose votes I got(false accusations/misrepresentation and exaggerated statements form "mediators"), I am no longer even interested in being on this committee.  Voice of All ''' T 01:14, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Mediation Committee: Outside Opinions:
 * Neutral for now, see comments below. Ral315 (talk) 13:17, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Still Neutral, I'd like to talk on IRC. Ral315 (talk) 15:18, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Support R  e  dwolf24  (talk) 23:10, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. I see no reason to oppose, therefore I support. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 22:16, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutral I have not even heard of you... I can't in good faith support, but I see no reason to oppose.   [[Sam Korn ]] 22:44, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutral for now: I like what I see so far at Talk:Neuro-linguistic programming. However, as I pointed out in your RfA a week or two ago, I didn't exactly like seeing you call someone a possible troll regarding RfAs (please read my vote at the RfA). However, we certainly all make mistakes, and you handled everything quite well afterwards. Can you email me so that I can get to know you a little better? Thanks very much. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | WS 23:07, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose: You seem to think that that a Mediator is an high-powered sysop. It's not like that at all. Mediation is about helping people freely and voluntarily reach a stable, mutually acceptable resolution. Uncle Ed 03:07, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Only in the most ridiculous extreme causes could anyone get blocked. I would never block someone unless they transform into vandal bot. If I see severe conduct issues, then I would get another admin to look over the situation, and what s/he does is his/her discretion, it is not my job to punish. I am here to offer policy insight, offer a third opinion, and suggest comprimises, and that is what I have done. I have said that I would only use the protect feature for edit wars; that is the only Sysop thing I would do. Voice of All  T 03:24, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose. User disagrees with the fundamental nature of mediation. --Improv 19:43, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Comments:
 * I would not admonish or block(except in the most exreme of cases imaginable) &mdash; Please explain what you mean by this. Are repeated 3RR violations "extreme"?  What about simple vandalism?  Ral315 (talk) 13:17, 27 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Repeated simple vandalism will lead to temporary protection. Repeated 3RR violations will lead to temporary protection, but not blocking.


 * Repeated vandalism, day after day means that that party has given up, and, as long is it continues to vandalize, has forfeited its negiating power. I would get another admin to have a look and s/he would punish if needed.Voice of All  Talk 22:16, 27 October 2005 (UTC)


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