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.

[edit] Voice_of_All(MTG)

Withdrawn by candidate.

Voice_of_All(MTG) (talk • contribs • count). 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|@|Esperanza} 01:14, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Mediation Committee:

• 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 Redwolf24 (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 | W_S 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|@|Esperanza} 03:24, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose. User disagrees with the fundamental nature of mediation. --Improv 19:43, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Outside Opinions:

Comments:

I would not admonish or block(except in the most exreme of cases imaginable) — 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|@|Esperanza} 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.