Wikipedia:Mediation Committee/Nominations/Willmcw

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

[edit] Willmcw

talk|contributions

Mediation is an important activity at Wikipedia due to the nature of our editing community. I've been an occasional mediation "customer" in the past, and I have the greatest respect for the process and for those who help it along. I've made over 10k article edits and almost as many talk page edits over the past 13 months, so I've seen a variety of editors, their behaviors, and their disputes. I've participated in some notable editing controversies, as well as dozens of lesser conflicts. Though I was recently admonished in an ArbCom case regarding a few edits, I have otherwise maintained my cool throughout. I've looked in on many RfCs and similar calls for help. For example: Biff Rose (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) and Aesthetic Realism (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Sometimes I've been drawn by an interest in the topic and so, because I came in as a (slight) "partisan", it was difficult to assume a "mediator" role later. Starting out as a mediator would be easier. I have training and experience as a facilitator and would like to contribute to the project by providing mediation where needed. -Willmcw 09:28, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

PS: After the New Year my username will be user:Will Beback. -Willmcw 19:25, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

PPS: I'm currently trying to be a helpful, mediating editor at Talk:Shiloh Shepherd Dog and Talk:Save Our State. -Will Beback 07:45, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Mediation Committee

• Neutral as usual, but very willing to support. Give me your take on the Lyndon LaRouche/Chip Berlet saga, which you were involved in, as well as what you think you did correctly and incorrectly therein. Ral315 (talk) 03:05, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I've responded on your talk page. -Willmcw 08:43, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Support; pleased with your comments. Sorry for the delay. Ral315 (talk) 17:23, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Support I know that I said I wouldn't vote in these anymore, but since no one's commenting I may as well. Redwolf24 (talk) 04:25, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support [[Sam Korn]] 13:54, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
• I'd like to hear your view regarding the Biff Rose dispute involving User:Sojambi Pinola and User:Jonah Ayers (if I remember the user names correctly), the dispute in which I'm tangentially-involved in. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:22, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I've responded on your talk page. -Will Beback 23:45, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support — Catherine\^talk 00:17, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Seems like a good egg. — Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 14:01, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 15:59, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support. —Guanaco 16:05, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Others:

• I've bumped into Willmc responding to RfCs before and he's a top lad. Support. Dan100 (Talk) 21:50, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
• Hear, hear! Capabale and dedicated; you definitely want him sitting on the Committee. El_C 09:02, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Jmabel | Talk 04:58, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Alexander 007 05:00, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
• After reading comments by editors I highly respect, I change vote to Support with the hope that Will proves me and my concerns wrong. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:46, 16 January 2006 (UTC) Oppose. Maintaining one's cool is not the best measure to assess a good candidate for this role. Mediators' most important traits are empathy, kindness, and understanding to both sides of a dispute and the ability to look for and identify possible bridges between opposing sides. My assessment is that Will is not capable of much empathy with opposing sides, based on my experience in editing controversial articles in which I found myself at the opposing side of Will's POVs. The ability to listen and the ability to conciliate opposing points of view are also needed skills for a mediator. Based on my interactions with him and on what I have observed of his interactions with others, I doubt Will's capabilities in this role. Add to it the very recent admonition by the ArbCom, specifically to extend respect and forgiveness to users, and I cannot but oppose his self-nomination at this time. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:17, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. IIRC, the articles we've edited together have all been related to new religious movements, particularly List of purported cults, Prem Rawat, Premie, Elan Vital, and perhaps a couple of others. These are topics which people, particularly adherents to these groups, are often passionate about. My aim in those articles was not to serve as a mediator, but I believe that my editing on those topics has been dispassionate. I invite you to remind me of occasions when it wasn't. Regarding the admonition from the ArbCom, it relates back to incidents which occured last spring, though their decision (as part of a larger case) was indeed recent. -Will Beback 20:11, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I am referring to your behavior as an editor and not as a mediator. It is exactly in controversial articles where mediation is often needed. The reason for my oppose vote is that being a mediator requires more than being dispassionate and the ability to remain cool. It requires empathy, kindness, and the ability to find common ground between opposing sides. My experience is that you have not demonstrated these abilities. We do not need mediators to police editors and make them comply with policy (a thing that you do well as a sysop), we need mediators to make Wikipedia a more pleasant environment by assisting with dispute resolutions and finding bridges in these situations were opposing sides do not see any. Having said all that, please note that I respect your ability as an editor and as an sysop. I only doubt your ability to be successful mediator, based on my experience in interacting with you and observing your interactions with others. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:12, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose I've run into willmcw/will be back and all I can say is that not only has he been brought up on charges of improper edits, he has been unanimously rebuked by a jury of his peers for POV violations etc. I think accepting him as a mediator would d ogreat harm. He uses ver ycatty like phrases in his comments and reverts without discussing on talk pages.216.175.114.62
  • Comment. Thanks, Jonah, but your characterization of the ArbCom decision is incorrect. -Will Beback 20:11, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support. I can think of very few editors more suited to the role of mediator than Will. I've edited some highly contentious articles with him, including the LaRouche pages and some articles about neo-Nazis and white supremacists. He is invariably fair to all sides, tries hard to avoid using labels, knows how to let the facts speak for themselves, and is careful to use good sources and stick closely to what they say. I've learned a lot from him about good editing and how to achieve NPOV. He has a calming effect on even the most toxic of talk pages and is always aiming to reach compromises (but without compromising NPOV, NOR, or V), rather than keep disputes simmering. He treats his opponents with respect, and even editors opposed to him usually emerge from the dispute with a grudging respect for him in return. Another thing I noticed about him is that, if he reaches a compromise with (what I would call) a troublemaker who is subsequently banned or blocked, Will sticks to the agreement and resists others changing the edit just because the troublemaker has gone, which shows integrity. All in all, he's an editor I trust absolutely. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:57, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support. AnnH ^(talk) 17:37, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support. From what I've seen of him he is highly suited to the job. haz (user talk) 20:57, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

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