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

Nomination of Mdann52[edit]

Links: view · edit · watch Submitted: 07 Nov 2014 (UTC) Open for 3444 days Candidate details Mdann52 (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks)

• Mdann52 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I've worked with Mdann52 and observed Mdann52's work at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard for the last several months, finding him to be a highly competent and workmanlike mediator capable of good case management and motivation. He would be a fine addition to our Committee. — TransporterMan (TALK) 17:06, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nominee's acceptance of nomination and opening statement: Thank you for the nomination. I would be happy to join MedCom, and hope my meditation skills would be useful on the committee. --Mdann52talk to me! 14:02, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for candidate[edit]

Candidate: Please answer these five questions. Members of the Committee: To pose an additional question, add it to the bottom of this section, and append your signature.

1. What are the core principles of formal mediation?

   The core principles all centre around reaching a compromise when possible, but trying to encourage those in the dispute to cooperate and work towards a solution themselves. Formal meditation achieves this by being more structured than previous stages, and having an assigned mediator, as opposed to whoever happens to see the request first. Additionally, Meditation is a last resort; if participants can reach a conclusion without our assistance, that suits them, as it is faster, and is a benefit to the committee, as we can focus on those who do need help. Meditation must also be fair to all sides of the dispute; If everyone who participates one side of the discussion participates, but none from the other, then no fair conclusion can be reached.

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?

   This encourages people to participate, as both sides have confidence we have their interests at heart, without having to worry if what they say through mediation will be used against them at a later date. This will also likely mean less baiting and the like will happen among some participants, as anything people say which may be usable against them elsewhere is not here, so there is no point in trying to point score, meaning the focus is on mediating

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?

   On Wikipedia, I have experience mainly at WP:DRN, although I have also helped on a few 3O requests, and have occasionally assisted with issues brought up at ANI but misplaced.

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 mediate a case at least occasionally?

   I hope to be able to meditate on a regular basis. My activity at the DRN is on and off, however if I am appointed to the committee, I would anticipate being able to increase my activity levels in this area.

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

   Yes, this will not be an issue.

Discussion of candidacy[edit]

General discussion of the candidacy should go here, not the talk page. Input from editors who are not members of the Committee is still very welcome.

Voting[edit]

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 oppose votes, it will be declined.

• Support as nominator. — TransporterMan (TALK) 18:37, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - good answers to the questions, and I trust TransporterMan's judgment. PhilKnight (talk) 23:18, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support; especially like answer to #2. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 00:07, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Reasonable answers plus DRN experience suggest that Mdann52 would be a good addition to MedCom. Sunray (talk) 10:41, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I've reviewed his edits at DRN over the last few months and I think he will do well on the committee. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 16:41, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. AGK [•] 20:41, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decision of the Mediation Committee[edit]

The Chairman will post the outcome of the nomination in this section. Nominations last no less than ten days.

• Promoted. For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:13, 17 November 2014 (UTC) (Chairperson)[reply]

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