Jump to content

Wikipedia:Mediation Committee/Nominations/Vassyana

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful nomination to join the Mediation Committee. Please do not modify it.

Vassyana

[edit]

Nominated:
12:13, June 12 2007 (UTC)
view watch

Vassyana (talk · contribs) I have a fair amount of experience with information mediation, both as part of MedCab and outside of it. I enjoy that part of my activity on the wiki and feel it is an important contribution. Helping editors work together and reducing the number of articles marred with dispute tags improves Wikipedia both in content and climate. I would like to continue and expand that work with the Mediation Committee. I believe my skills and experience would be a good addition. Also, as a MedCab coordinator, I am in a unique position to help ensure that the goals and coverage of MedCab and MedCom are in harmony.

Questions from the committee:

Hi Vassyana. I have some question I'd like to ask if you don't mind clarifying a few things for me:
  1. What do you do as MedCab coordinator?
  2. Are there any particular MedCab cases you have been involved in with which you are particularly proud? Why?
  3. What do you see as the strength and weaknesses of the MedCom / MedCab systems respectively? How could either / both be improved?
  4. To what extent do you intend to continue your work with MedCab if appointed to MedCom?
Feel free to answer these however suits you best, I'm just trying to get a better feel for you as far as mediation goes... WjBscribe 02:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not a problem at all.
  1. Well, befitting the informality of MedCab, my role is fairly informal. Generally, I keep an eye on the MedCab pages, answer questions, make myself available for advice or questions and similar activities. There are some cases I keep an eye on per request. Since MedCab has no real formal membership, volunteers come and go. Part of being an active coordinator in that environment is simply being a consistent presence and setting a tone.
  2. from active cases, I've adopted the case for Fellowship of Friends. The other volunteer was under real life time constraints and the participants received an suggestion to approach me, and after reviewing my contributions & interests, accepted my assistance. I have generally approached it on the article talk page and avoided the use of the case page. I have taken an active role as an outside voice, making suggestions, providing some example drafts and providing some policy-based opinions. There's still a lot of work to do, but despite my firm opinions and the strong POVs involved, I have maintained the respect of the editors there. When they come to a roadblock, they will bring it to my attention and solicit my input. I'm largely proud of it because I've been able to maintain the trust and respect of all the participants, and therefore able to keep everyone engaged & the process moving forward.
  3. I do have a few ideas, but I am giving a bit more consideration to this question. I will answer after some further thought. I apologize for the delay.
I think MedCab's best strength is its informality and flexibility. It can work especially well when the participants are mostly seeking a consistent outside opinion and voice of reason. MedCab's weakness is its inconsistency. Editors can receive top-notch mediation assistance through MedCab, but the same editors with the same issue can encounter problematic and ineffective assistance as well. I've been putting some thought into how to address this shortcoming without unduly impacting informality and flexibility. I'm also inclined to believe that MedCab may be getting a little creepy and has shown occasional trends of excess formality. I am still considering these issues and have not reached a definitive conclusion as of yet.
I am obviously less familiar with MedCom. I believe MedCom's greatest strengths are its formality and hardline privacy. Editors often need the comfort of formal resolutions and the privacy MedCom offers can work through issues in a way not otherwise available. I currently think MedCom's greatest weakness is public perception. MedCom can often seem mysterious. There is also a widespread misperception that committee mediations are binding, as well as formal. I also understand this is why there is a disclaimer paragraph in the lede. Perhaps there might be a better way to present MedCom across various pages, but I have no immediate ideas. 22:05, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
  1. I intend to continue my efforts with MedCab, as well as working with plain talk page dispute resolution. If I were appointed to MedCom, it would allow me to continue and expand my mediation activities.
If you need further clarification or have other questions, please ask. Vassyana 20:25, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Two further questions:
  1. How might you have handled the Fellowship of Friends case if it had been a MedCom, not a MedCab, case? I realize this is an open ended question; feel free to be as brief as you wish - no need to try to cover all the differences.
  2. You state you wish to continue with MedCab. Do you anticipate any conflicts, and if so, how do you plan to deal with them? KillerChihuahua?!? 22:41, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. In general, I would have handled the case less publicly. Talk page mediation seems to be appropriate for MedCab, but not MedCom. I probably would have been more active overall in the mediation process. I most likely would haven taken a more "neutral" position as well, since in some instances I have acted as an active outside contributor.
  2. There could be some potential conflicts. I think the greatest potential conflicts are due to perceptions and case overlap. Some people might make requests or act in a certain way if I am both a MedCab coordinator and a member of MedCom. The best solution would be to remind people that I am an informal helper if it's a MedCab case and for MC cases that my participation in MedCab grants me no authority in MedCom cases. Case overlap could lead to a conflict of interest. If I participated in any way in a MedCab case, I would recuse myself if it comes to MedCom. The reverse should also be true. In general, my MedCab and MedCom participation should be separate, with preference towards preventing contentious situations.
If you need further explanation, or if my answers raise further questions, please ask. Vassyana 21:46, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. I've already supported you, but I'd like to clarify: how do you see the link between the confidentiality of mediation and the fact that it is voluntary? —Sean Whitton / 16:49, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. That's almost a self-answering question, to me. Due to the open nature of the wiki, a non-open solution is a specific exception to the common functioning of the place. So, some agreement is required to make an exception. Also, without an agreement to confidential proceedings, the likelihood of actions remaining confidential is very slim. A full agreement is needed to exclude the process from the normal wiki openness and to ensure confidentiality can be expected & justifiably enforced. As always, please ask if you have further questions. Vassyana 23:37, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation Committee:

Outside opinions:

Comments:

The above nomination to join the Mediation Committee is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Mediation_Committee/Nominations/Vassyana&oldid=140833683"