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

• Mr. Stradivarius ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hi all. I present Mr. Stradivarius to the committee for consideration. Mr. Stradivarius has been active on Wikipedia since late 2010, and has been heavily active at the dispute resolution noticeboard, along with mediating cases at MedCab. A few cases he has mediated are Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/24 October 2011/Battle of Tali-Ihantala along with a mediation on the verifiability policy, at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/27 February 2012/Wikipedia:Verifiability. He possesses many of the qualities we look for in a mediator: patient, approachable, good negotiating skills and excellent knowledge of policy. I am confident he will be an asset to the committee. Steven Zhang ^{Get involved in DR!} 09:48, 27 May 2012 (UTC) reply

I accept this nomination. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{( have a chat)} 14:11, 27 May 2012 (UTC) reply

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?

   Formal mediation is a way to resolve disputes that have been through a previous attempt at dispute resolution, by the intervention of a neutral third party. Mediation is voluntary, and relies on the participants acting in good faith to find a resolution that all can live with. For this reason, disputes purely about user conduct are not amenable to mediation, and formal mediation is reserved for disputes about article content. (However, in practice the lines between content and conduct disputes are often blurred, and mediators may choose to address minor conduct issues as part of a mediation.) Similarly, mediators do not issue binding decisions about disputes, but rather guide the participants to reach a consensus. The result of any mediation has to fall within the limits allowed by Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, however - mediators do not allow participants to reach any agreement between themselves if that agreement could damage Wikipedia's integrity. Finally, mediators must be neutral regarding the topic of the article and the mediation participants (and I would also add that it is equally important to be seen as being neutral about these things).

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?

   Good communication is essential for resolving disputes, and if participants are worried about whether their words will be used against them in a future venue, they might not feel free to speak their minds during mediation. This could result in behaviour calculated to avoid future sanctions, such as attempts to paint other participants in a bad light. This kind of behaviour works to escalate disputes, not to resolve them, and so it is to be avoided at all costs. Protecting the privileged nature of communication made during a mediation is an efficient way of ensuring these problems do not arise.

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?

   I have mostly been active on the dispute resolution noticeboard, where I currently have over 600 edits. Some of the disputes which I assisted with were just a matter of me giving my opinion, but others I treated in a more mediation-like fashion. I haven't counted the exact number of disputes that I've dealt with on that board, but I think it is probably more than 50 at this point. In addition to this, I have been involved in three cases at the Mediation Cabal, all of which were/are fairly large. My first case there was Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/02 October 2011/Holodomor, which was co-mediated with Steven Zhang and TransporterMan. This case was useful for learning how to control a large-scale mediation, and it also taught me the dangers of letting a dispute drag out. My first large-scale solo mediation was Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/24 October 2011/Battle of Tali-Ihantala, and I also learned some lessons from that - this time it was how to deal with editors that make unreasonable demands. Currently I am mediating Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/27 February 2012/Wikipedia:Verifiability, which I have found a lot easier to deal with than the previous two, mostly due to the experience and level-headedness of the participants. As a mediator, the verifiability mediation has been interesting due to the discussions about autism/Asperger spectrum editors, and has taught me more about when (not) to use polls, and how individual editors differ in judging comments to be personal attacks. I think my experiences at DRN and MedCab have given me a good working knowledge of the different kinds of disputes and how to go about resolving them, and I think these skills would be useful for work at MedCom.

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 plan to take on disputes as needed. I know that mediation can be quite time-consuming, so I probably wouldn't take on more than one dispute at a time, but I would be comfortable being involved with mediation most or all of the time.

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?

   Yes, absolutely.

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.

• Support. AGK [•] 10:30, 28 May 2012 (UTC) reply
• Support. I've skimmed some of Mr. Stradivarius' recent MedCab cases - combined with the answers here, I see an editor with a great deal of practical experience who shows a keen understanding of the principles which govern MedCom. I believe that Mr. Stradivarius would be positive contribution to the team. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 11:06, 28 May 2012 (UTC) reply
• Support. Lord Roem ( talk) 14:10, 28 May 2012 (UTC) reply
• Support. He's got a clear head and a steadying hand in disputes; we can use someone like him. Keilana| ^{Parlez ici} 16:40, 28 May 2012 (UTC) reply
• Support Xavexgoem ( talk) 21:32, 28 May 2012 (UTC) reply
• Support. Sunray ( talk) 16:22, 20 June 2012 (UTC) reply

Decision of the Mediation Committee

The Chairman will post the outcome of the nomination in this section. Nominations last no less than ten days.

Welcome to the Mediation Committee Mr. Stradivarius, details to follow. On behalf of the Mediation Committee, WGFinley ( talk) 17:45, 20 June 2012 (UTC) reply

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