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

• Feezo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

As illustrated below, I've discovered the satisfaction in being a Wikipedia peacemaker, and would like to formalize this role by joining the Mediation Committee. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 08:58, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The first five questions are the 'default' questions asked of every candidate. Members of the Committee may pose further questions in this section, and should sign any questions they add.

1. What are the core principles of formal mediation?

   Formal mediation is the last stage in resolving disputes rooted in article content. The basic idea is that when several editors are in disagreement, a neutral third party can often help resolve it. Mediation is a voluntary, cooperative process to that end. It follows a structured protocol distinct from informal mediation, and does not result in binding decisions. The idea is to resolve good faith disputes amicably, without sanctions or enforcement.This obviously means that MedCom cannot take all requested cases; each participant must want the case to be mediated, and even then, is not bound by Committee's decision. This—and the fact that its intention is to resolve content disputes—makes it very different from arbitration. Indeed, if one examines the words themselves, "mediate" means "to divide in the middle", while "arbitrate" means "to judge". As formal bodies founded by Jimbo Wales, it's easy to draw parallels between the Mediation Committee and the Arbitration Committee, but the reality is that they could hardly be more different.

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?

   Privileged communication is an important part of the process, because it encourages editors to speak freely to the mediators, which helps them reach the core issues and resolve them. If editors feel that they have to constantly cover their backs, they are less likely to express their true opinions, and mediation is less likely to be successful.

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?

   Last month I successfully brokered an agreement between several parties in a content dispute (see Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive 32#Frustration with unregistered editor and User talk:Feezo#Offer of mediation.) I was surprised and pleased when one of the parties recently asked me to mediate again.

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 be mediate a case at least occasionally?

   I anticipate being moderately active; I could take up to several cases per month, depending on the complexity and my experience with the relevant topics and issues.

5. If appointed to the Committee, will you be willing to subscribe to the Committee's private mailing list, to regularly lead the (small number of) e-mails that are exchanged over the mailing list each month, and actively participate in discussions?

   Of course.

General discussion of the candidacy should go here, rather than on the talk page. Community opinions on the merits of the candidacy are especially welcome, and should be made in this section.

• Thank you for your nomination. In line with standard practice, I have sent an e-mail to the Committee mailing list to invite the other mediators to comment here, so some more participants should be forthcoming over the next week. For the Mediation Committee, AGK [•] 12:29, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• I will close this nomination in the coming 24–48 hours. For the Mediation Committee, AGK [•] 21:29, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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 votes, it will be declined.

• Support -- Andrevan@ 23:05, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 19:35, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - established user and good answers to the questions. PhilKnight (talk) 21:48, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --Xavexgoem (talk) 02:14, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - I don't see any issues opposing the person to be a member of the MC. Shyam ^(T/C) 05:10, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- I really like Feezo's commitment to peacemaking within the WP community. Answers show a good feel for the realities of mediation, though I might add that mediation can result in an action plan, and, if the parties agree, a binding decision. Sunray (talk) 21:06, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- Ditto Phil and Sunray's comments. --WGFinley (talk) 16:32, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - seems levelheaded, answers indicate good grasp of mediation and a healthy dose of sense. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 17:36, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Chairperson of the Committee will indicate in this section what the outcome of the discussion is, before closing the nomination. Nominations last no less than ten days.

• Promoted. For the Mediation Committee, AGK [•] 21:44, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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