Wikipedia:Mediation Committee/Nominations/Deskana

Deskana

Nominated:
02:00, August 24 2007 (UTC)
view edit watch

Deskana (talk · contribs) I am applying to help as a mediator for several reasons. I believe I can act as a calming voice of reason in any mediation cases I'm involved in. I'm well versed in Wikipedia's policies, and I am an administrator (nom), bureaucrat (nom) and checkuser, so have quite a bit of the community's trust. I don't forsee myself being the most active mediator, but I can probably manage at least one case at any time (maybe more), and I feel that my services will be an asset for the Committee.

Questions from Committee members:

What are the core principles of Mediation Committee mediation?
- The process is voluntary. This assures that the mediation will be as fruitful as is possible, as if everyone is willing, they will not disrupt the mediation, and will take part to the best of their ability. This also ensures all parties will respect the final result of the mediation, despite the fact it is not binding. Also, the process can be confidental, if required. This assists in keeping a good atmosphere where mediation can be successful. Mediation discussions are privileged, meaning whatever parties say cannot be used against them in later proceedings, such as arbitration.
Discussions during formal mediation are privileged; they cannot be used against the parties in later proceedings (e.g. RfArb/RfC). Why is that important?
- If people are unable to speak freely during the mediation, then the process cannot be used to maximum benefit. By assuring parties that they will not be held liable for anything they say, they will speak more freely, ensuring the best result from medation possible.
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?
- People quite frequently use me as a form of informal mediation, by coming to my talk page and asking for assistance. For instance, both User:John Smith's and User:Giovanni33 used me as an informal mediator between the two of them, before their formal mediation request was handled. As an older example, a month or so before I was made an admin, I attempted to smooth things over between two users, archive here. It's probably worth noting that Robsteadman was frequently hostile to me, but I still tried helping him. Also of note is the recent case of User:Oldwindybear using sockpuppets. After promoting Oldwindybear to adminship per his RfA, I started to see signs that he was using sockpuppets. I originally just asked him if it was true, since there was no point in being hasty. Once Stillstudying (the suspected sock) started getting abusive in his own right, I asked for help from others in assessing the situation. A request for checkuser was filed, which returned unrelated. I apologised to Oldwindybear for the accusation, but in the end it turned out that I was right, see this and this. He later e-mailed me asking that I delete his userpage, which I was happy to do for him [1].
Additional questions from Anthøny ん;

(1). Where an RfM you have volunteered to Mediate is being actively disrupted by non-Parties (for example, incivil replies to listed Parties' statements, blatant attacks on Parties, and so on), what steps would you take to counter this?

I'd almost certainly remove the comments first. I'd also ask the person to stop disrupting it. Chances are that anyone disrupting a mediation page is just acting inappropriatly without realising they're not supposed to do it. Asking them to stop first is a reasonable solution. If they insist they must be involved, then I would consider adding them as a party, with the permission of the other parties. If they continue senselessly disrupting the mediation process and rejecting all compromises and middle grounds I offer for their participation in mediation, they can be blocked for disruption per the blocking policy, but it'd take quite a bit for it to come to that. This reminds me of what Jimbo says: "Anyone who just complains without foundation, refusing to join the discussion, I am afraid I must simply reject and ignore. Consensus is a partnership between interested parties working positively for a common goal". This is particularly relevant here.

Follow up question: there are also other options available to the Mediator, which would prevent a disruptive user from accessing the Mediation. Could you describe these? (Apologies for being vague, but if I wasn't it would be too easy :) Anthøny ん 20:35, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's no requirement that the mediation be held onwiki, as long as all principles of mediation are upheld. If someone refuses to stop disrupting mediation and (for whatever reason) blocking is not appropriate, the parties can move the mediation off to IRC/e-mail/MedCom wiki or other appropriate medium. --Deskana (apples) 21:06, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This was the angle I was looking for :) Anthøny ん 21:49, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(2). Taking that same situation, but substituting disruption by a non-Party with disruption by a user listed as a Party on the Case Page, what would your actions be in this situation? For clarification purposes, the Party's attitude is causing the Mediation to detoriate, and all attempts at reasoning are having no effect.

Again, I would ask them to stop, reminding them that the mediation needs to be neutral ground for it to be successful. However, if one party continued to repeatedly disrupt the mediation, I would terminate the mediation case. Mediation must be voluntary and not contain attacks in order to be successful. I'd probably recommend arbitration at that point, as if the party refuses to submit to mediation, it's unlikely that there's much else that can be done.

Great answer, Deskana. You've raised all the points I was hoping you would - the Mediator's ability to pass a case along to the MedCom's Sister Commitee, as well as pointing out that if a user does not agree to Mediation (whether that be communicated through their disagreement on the case page, or disruptive behaviour during the Mediation) then "forcing" them is never an option - i.e., that Mediation is voluntary. Anthøny ん 20:59, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation Committee:

I'm going to support this nomination, on the basis that Deskana meets my five general criteria for nominations: community trust, Clue, ability to keep cool, articulate, and be a genuine net asset to the Committee. That being said, I would have liked to see Deskana take a case for us parallel with this nomination, just for parity's sake, to give us a chance to see him in full flight. However, that isn't possible at the present due to the Committee having assigned all the unassigned cases (which is such a terrible problem, I know). I'm supporting because of the five things I mentioned above and because personal experience makes me confident that Deskana is more-than-capable with dealing with whatever a RfM throws up at him. I have trust and confidence in Deskana that he will be a very positive addition to the Committee. Daniel 02:20, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Just when you mention it, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Islam and antisemitism cropped up. Deskana, would you be interested in taking this case parallel to your nomination? Daniel 06:55, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'd be happy to give it a go. --Deskana (banana) 11:07, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Process started. Thanks, Deskana. My support stands, as I have the utmost confidence in Deskana. Daniel 12:28, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Like Daniel, I will support based on the fact that this user clearly has the trust of the community. I have no doubt that my support will be backed up by your handling of a case. --דניאל - Danielrocks123 16:37, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional Strong Support. I see absolutely no reason to oppose, but I'd like to see performance in a case first. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 17:26, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral – leaning towards (strong) support; I'd like to delay my final decision until we've had a chance to see Deskana Formally Mediating an RfM, although his answers above set a good platform which I'm sure he'll be able to build on with some more practical experience, and the enormous community trust that has been placed in him already. Anthøny ん 21:49, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Outside opinions:

Deskana enjoys my full trust and confidence. I think he would make an extremely worthy addition to the committee. ~ Riana ⁂ 13:10, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Riana. ElinorD (talk) 13:26, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deskana is one of the most level-headed and trusted members of the community and I have complete trust in him. He would be an asset to MedCom - Alison ☺ 13:32, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I trust Deskana.Proabivouac 23:34, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The only thing I have any concerns about is this:"move the mediation off to IRC/e-mail/MedCom wiki or other appropriate medium". I believe that IRC is not the proper place for actual mediation. Other then that, I trust Deskana. ~ Wikihermit 00:02, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for your support, but I'd like to add that offering the possibility of mediation on IRC has been a mediation committee practice for a while, as far as I'm aware. This isn't anything new. --Deskana (apples) 00:20, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I know, I'm not a fan of too many wikipedia actions/ect taking place on IRC. You've seemed to explain your point though (on IRC none the less :-)). ~ Wikihermit 00:26, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - There really is no problem with it. I think you are confused. It appears you are thinking about what happens when someone blocks someone on-wiki with a summary like "per IRC". That is completely different from Mediation, one of the core parts of the Mediation Committee is that something like this should be allowed to be done off-wiki, like on IRC, if need be. Mediation is not binding at all, it is just an aim to get parties to stop fighting by understanding each other, not forcing them by doing something like blocking, that is the Arbitration Committee. It's not a "tangible" Wikipedia action. My opinion, of course. :-) Cbrown1023 talk 00:35, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Virtually identical to what I said, but I was just too lazy to type it again :-p --Deskana (apples) 00:36, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I guess we see eye-to-eye! :-) Cbrown1023 talk 00:38, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        As Deskana notes, IRC mediation has been offered/used by the Mediation Committee in the past, and I cannot envisage that the Committee has any reason for this to be discontinued. IRC is a) not binding; b) confidental; and c) privileged, and IRC can be effective as a mediation medium. Daniel 01:28, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: