Wikipedia:Mediation Committee/Nominations/Seicer

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

Seicer

Nominated:
07:52, December 25 2007 (UTC)
view edit watch

Seicer (talk · contribs) Dispute resolution is something I have been handing at WP:WQA for a while and at WP:ANI to a lesser extent. I became frustrated with the lack of progress a while back at WP, burnt out over my many edits and vandalism/POV-pushes that seemed to go unchecked. I took a hiatus from editing and came back with a different focus -- mostly on dispute resolution and generalized editing in a way to aid others who may be in the same boat that I was months prior. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 07:55, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Questions from Committee members:

• What are the core principles of Mediation Committee mediation?
  • The core principle is to try to resolve disputes regarding content, primarily to the benefit of the parties involved. Mediation is not binding, nor is it a trial proceeding, and it exists only to try to facilitate a good-faith discussion and to try to have the parties compromise on a solution that would work best.
• Discussions during formal mediation are privileged; they cannot be used against the parties in later proceedings (e.g. RfArb/RfC). Why is that important?
  • Discussions held at Mediation are not binding. If one user drops out of the discussion on article XXX and another user steps up to begin editing at XXX, then this mediation has no effect except as a guidepost. If that user edits outside of the "boundaries" of the mediation's resolution on XXX, for instance, in adding something controversial that could cause dispute, it should not be used against the editor at later proceedings where punishment and/or censure can be severe. In addition, if discussions at Mediation are used elsewhere in a manner that can be un-beneficial to the parties involved, those parties may be unwilling to use the Mediation Committee for future disputes and dilute its stated purpose.
• What prior experience do you have in resolving disputes on Wikipedia? Please provide links, and how will these experiences help you to be an effective Committee member?
  • I am a frequent guest at WP:WQA, and although there are too many diffs to list, here are some of my most recent: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9]
  • I also took note of this entry [10] and promptly took control of Bernie Ward, removing BLP vios, converting links to refs (if acceptable), and doing a generalized overhaul -- as part of dispute resolution.
  • I also haunt WP:ANI. Given that I cannot perform administrator duties, some conflicts can be resolved by a user reporting a vio of 3RR, performing cleanup of an article in vio in dispute (as a third party), providing comment on user reported elsewhere (e.g. such as WQA), and providing a third opinion where needed: [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19]
  • WP:3RR (I've posted here a lot more in the past, but there are a few instances.): [20]
  • Sorry, there is more but I'm a bit crimped on time at the moment. See this and the edit count for more.

Mediation Committee:

• Allow me to be the first MedCom member to support this nomination. I particularly liked your answers to the questions, and you seem to have a clear idea of what MedCom is all about. Also, your dispute resolution history speaks for itself. --דניאל - Dantheman531 00:52, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
• And I want to be the second to support. I can understand why some of my colleagues may be cautious due to the fact that you're not an administrator and/or you don't have structured mediation experience. However, from what I see of you both now and in the past, you would make a great administrator so I don't consider that a concern. Furthermore, your input at the various noticeboards is generally-well-founded and well-recieved, which is more than can be said for some of our current administrators :) On the dispute resolution front, you have ample experience in a variety of forums, and you showed your desire to be a mediator both earlier this year and then again now. Your answers show a good understanding of mediation on Wikipedia and the Mediation Committee's goals, and your contributions to the mainspace would leave you in good stead to understand how content disputes occur and how to fix them. You also show that you're lively, and have good motivational drive. From a personal perspective, I feel you'd make a good addition to the Mediation Committee, and I find whatever concerns I saw unpersuasive (or easily-remedied), hence my support. Good luck :) Daniel 02:03, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
• Support. My intention was to support you last night, but time constraints meant that it wasn't to be. Now, the two Daniels have said everything I would have said! At the danger of sounding like an unimaginative parrot, there is a clear ability to Mediate here, despite the lack of administrator tools (which, incidentally, I do not see as a worry in that, as Daniel from comment 2 states, you could very well be one :) this ability to Mediate is demonstrated not only in your contributions to the various administrator related noticeboards, but in the generally positive attitude by which you make your Wikipedia contributions. I have every confidence in your Mediation abilities. Best of luck! Anthøny 13:14, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
• Support, will be an asset to the community. Shyam ^(T/C) 11:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
• Support per your trusted skills in dispute resolution, you'll be an asset to the committee. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:53, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Community opinions:

• I recall working with Seicer on varied disputes on the Habbo Hotel article a while back (might I emphasise the words "while back") where he dealt with disruptive trolls and sarcasm from single purpose accounts from trolling websites in a completely civil way, without once stepping out of line. The debate went on for months, and although I could sense the "I-feel-like-I'm-repeating-myself"-ness in his comments (this happens all the time when disputes carry on for longer than usual), he didn't appear to ever give into the disruption, nor did he appear to step out of line of relevant policies to make a personal attack or to make totally uncivil comments. Seicer's comments in the debate appeared to be totally appropriate, and I believe the qualities that he possesses are ideal qualities for any user willing to volunteer time to mediate disputes. I hope you will consider my comments here. Spebi 04:52, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
• I'm also a regular at the WQA and I believe Seicer's experience and general demeanor, as demonstrated there, qualifies him to be a productive member of the Mediation Committee. I've never been involved with Mediation, but I believe he would be a good candidate based on my experience with him and my knowledge of other DR processes. One of the qualities I think is most admirable is his ability to deal with hostile parties - at the WQA we see alot of people who either file a complaint or who are the subject of a complaint, and once somebody says something about them, sensibility goes out the window and the entire WQA is insane and out to get them and everyone else is wrong. I'm exaggerating, but you know, people get fussy and Seicer does a great job of dealing with that stuff in particular (in addition to being a good mediator in general). --Cheeser1 (talk) 03:12, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
• Although I don't actively participate in threads at WQA, I certainly visit them although I must say, not often. I recall seeing Seicer at numerous XFDs, ANI and other places where at all times he has shown, not only enthusiasm for joining the MedCom but also the determination (IMO) and need for the role. His cool restraint in the face of argument is outstanding and I would wish him all the best, if the nomination were to be successful. And as is, that's most likely. Rt. 20:11, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Discussion and comments:

Decision of the Mediation Committee:

Appointed.

For the Mediation Committee, WjBscribe 02:32, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

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