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

Tariqabjotu[edit]

Tariqabjotu (talk · contribs) Hello, Shalom, Salaam. I first edited Wikipedia in June 2005 (under the name Joturner) and have been most active on the project since December 2005. I became an administrator in November 2006, after two unsuccessful attempts as well as after changing my username in July 2006. During the (northern) spring of this year, I received quite a few messages on my talk page asking for me to intervene in conflicts, usually by taking action against an opposing editor (which I would not do). I saw how counter-productive and disruptive heated disputes could be to a project such as Wikipedia where collaboration is paramount and felt a bit guilty about mentioning WP:DR instead of lending my assistance to defusing the conflicts. That's when I decided to head to RfM myself to see if I could help out with the dispute resolution process. Mediating two cases for the Committee the past couple months has not been difficult or stressful for me and I'd like to continue helping to defuse disputes before they get too intense as an official member of the Mediation Committee.

Questions from Committee members:

• What are the core principles of Mediation Committee mediation?
  • In my opinion, the core principles of Mediation Committee mediation are impartiality, civility, and openness. The concept of openness, in my opinion, is the most important of the principles I mentioned since, in a way, it covers the other two. If parties involved in a mediation are not open to looking at a conflict from a different perspective or are reluctant to make compromises, the mediation is unlikely to come out favorably. Civility is one way of fostering openness. Personal attacks and other generally harsh language tend to obscure pertinent points, preventing an opposing party from seeing even valid points coming from an uncivil participant. Impartiality is, for the most part, a quality the mediator must exhibit. No party in a mediation should feel he or she is backed into a corner by the mediator; each should feel he or she has an equal opportunity to present his or her position and relevant ideas.

• Discussions during formal mediation are privileged; they cannot be used against the parties in later proceedings (e.g. RfArb/RfC). Why is that important?
  • The privileged nature of mediation is important so parties in a dispute can be open and forthright without the fear they will later regret what they say. This is not to say that the rules of harmonious discussion do not apply during mediation (because they should). However, no matter how much civility is emphasized throughout mediation, there will always be times when someone gets very frustrated and says something he or she would not normally say. We would not want to discourage people from agreeing to a mediation (which, after all, is 100% voluntary) based on the prospect of reprisal and the worry their reputation might be tarnished because of a moment of anger in the midst of a heated dispute. The privileged nature of mediation is just one of the ways we can encourage people to seek help in resolving a dispute, instead of letting it continue to fester (often in intense fashion) on talk and user talk pages.

• 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?
  • My most notable experience in resolving disputes comes from the two cases which I have mediated for the Committee. Between mid June and late July, I mediated the AMG Chemmani case and more recently, I have begun to mediate the Mao: The Unknown Story 2 case (which is still ongoing). My work on these two cases demonstrates my competency at mediating real cases in the manner in which I will be expected to perform as a member of the Committee. I have also submitted comments to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2, providing evidence as well as contributing items to the workshop. I even added a statement prior to the official start of the RfArb, to which Picaroon (talk · contribs) said, "the statement almost deserves being attached to ((controversial)), just so more people could see it and realize how silly, overblown - and even preventable - some of these conflicts are". Indeed, my statement (and Picaroon's response) speaks as a testament to my desire to avoid letting disputes get out of hand. It might mean something to say that I tend to gravitate toward controversial, yet vital, articles; specifically, I did a great deal of work bringing Mosque and Jerusalem to featured status (and I'm currently working on Israel, as you can probably discern from my contribution history). Although I have not acted as a mediator on any of these articles (insofar as I can tell), I feel one's ability to persevere through conflicts of his or her own is important to becoming a successful mediator.

Optional Question from Anthøny ⇔;

• You have agreed to Mediate an RfM, yet you are increasingly finding that the multiple parties on each side of the dispute are, in the "heat of the moment", hampering your attempts at reaching a resolution. What are your options to restore the important-to-unimportant ratio of content, to prevent any further confusion, and to further work towards a compromise? Anthøny ⇔ 14:57, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll try to field this one as best I can, but if I am misinterpreting your question (or you're alluding to a different hypothetical situation), please correct me. I would hope to stop a disruptive situation like the one you mention before it gets out of control and turns into a free-for-all. Thus, I'd try to halt incivil or irrelevant discussion before it begins to derail the mediation. If certain elements of comments are clearly irrelevant or inflammatory and easy to remove without ruining the gist of the important parts, I'd probably just go ahead and remove the problematic comments with a reminder to stay on-point. I haven't had too many opportunities to test the effectiveness of that approach, but I have a feeling that would be sufficient in many cases to send the message that certain comments are counter-productive to the mediation. If that does not work, I could re-emphasize the importance of civility through a message on the (talk) page of the mediation, and then reiterate the question or point that was originally being discussed to try to focus the attention back on the issues at hand. Sometimes other participants in the mediation will do this themselves, asking incivil editors to stop being disruptive, instead of responding with incivility of their own (and I secretly applaud them for doing so). I'd let those kinds of comments from other participants stand if they end up being effective, but I'll chime in if the incivil party simply lashes out at the kind participant asking for an end to incivility (or irrelevancy, depending on the circumstances). If certain editors are persistently ignoring the requests to cease the unnecessary diversions, I would have a couple options. Depending on the circumstances, I could contact individual editors, most likely by e-mail. If a great deal has been accomplished already and the parties are beginning to lose interest, I'll simply end the mediation, citing the unlikelihood that more could be accomplished (like at AMG Chemmani). Alternatively, if there are other (non-disruptive) participants with the same or similar positions as the disruptive party, I could ask the persistently disruptive party (or parties) to select a spokesperson (or a couple spokespeople). I'm not very fond of the last option because I'd hate to have to burden someone with being the middleman for someone else, so I'd make sure the spokespeople are entirely comfortable with taking on that role. Ultimately, if the case becomes too hot to handle and multiple parties persistently disregard my attempts to get the mediation back on track, I will simply end the mediation. Mediation is supposed to be voluntary; a persistent unwillingness to cooperate with the mediator (not to mention each other) is, to me, a disagreement to mediation.

• Fabulous answer, Tariq; I was particuarly looking for the mention of appointing a spokesperson for each side, as well as a mention of the re-factoring/removal of comments. These two points each show that you're extremely familiar with the Mediation Policy, and I commend you for that. Anthøny ん 16:25, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation Committee:

• Support. I have been extremely impressed with Tariqabjotu's handling of AMG Chemmani and he also seems to making good progress with Mao: The Unknown Story 2. There is something of a misnomer that good mediators will never be involved in controversy- in fact such experience is often beneficial to understanding how to aid in resolving a dispute, especially where the participants are passionate about the subject matter. The key is how a potential mediator behaves in such circumstances - it is apparent on reviewing Tariqabjotu's contributions that he edits some very controversial articles, yet in all the discussions I have read he has maintained a calm and rationale tone that has been effective in minimising conflict. This, combined with the strong skills demonstrated in his work for the Committee to date, has convinced me that Tariqabjotu would be an asset to the Committee and I have no hesitation in supporting his nomination. WjBscribe 02:03, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Support per Will. After looking at the relevant pages, I see we have a good candidate here who can help the Committee well. Also, his answers to the questions are very well thought out and are exactly what I'm looking for. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 16:59, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong support. Daniel 02:13, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – Tariqabjotu is an excellent Mediator; he's clearly familiar with the Mediation Policy (and, as such, how Mediation works). His long-standing Administrator status has not been marked with anything but positive, beneficial-to-Wikipedia decisions, and he clearly has the level of Community trust required from Committee members. In all, one of the finest Mediators I've seen on Wikipedia to date, and I for one would be honoured to work alongside him through the Dispute Resolution process. Best of luck, Anthøny ん 16:25, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I don't think that there's anything left for me to say that hasn't been said already. Looks like a great candidate. --דניאל - Danielrocks123 17:05, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, I suppose, Tariqabjotu understands all the Wikipedia's policies which are helpful to mediate case. Shyam ^(T/C) 17:51, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, I was impressed with his dispute resolution skills. Andre (talk) 00:04, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Outside opinions:

• I don't think this candidate is neutral. I put up evidence on the administrator's board that should be carefully looked at before making a decision [1]. The most important thing is that he definitely should not mediate on articles that have any relation to the Middle East. Egyegy 18:15, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am aware of the thread you refer to and considered it before expressing my opinion here (I know Daniel did too). As to mediating articles with a connection to Middle East, it is expected that mediators will not mediate in areas they have a strong feelings about - a number of Committee members have areas they would not be prepared to deal with. On a more practical level, participants in a mediation must be willing to accept the mediator who offers to mediate - anyone who had a problem with Tariqabjotu mediating their dispute could simply request a different mediator. WjBscribe 18:26, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Mediation Committee expects its' members to use common sense when dealing with recusals on cases, dealt with individually and on a case-by-case basis. By voting 'support' and knowing about that discussion (as WJBscribe notes, I knew about the discussion before casting my vote, because I told him about it), I basically said 'Yes, I believe Tariqabjotu can apply common sense with regards to recusals in particular cases' (amongst other things - experience, mediation ability, community trust etc., of course). I can't see this being a problem at all, really, as Tariqabjotu has always given me the impression of being a cautious individual with ample amounts of Clue. That being said, there is no mandate for Tariqabjotu to recuse on any case per your comments and if this nomination is successful - the Committee avoids placing restrictions/compulsions on members (see WP:M) when dealing with their mediating selection and process. Daniel 00:02, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Good luck man. You got my ok. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 08:00, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• My personal interactions with Tariqabjotu have unfortunately been limited but I know him by reputation as one of the most cool-headed, wise, intelligent users we have. Should make a wonderful addition to the current MedCom ranks. ~ Riana ⁂ 10:53, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

• I've left some questions for the Nominee; I understand it is very hypothetical, and perhaps (in my attempt to deliberately avoid mentioning what I'm "testing", for want of a better word) confusing, so don't hesitate to drop me a note at my talk page if you need some clarification. Anthøny ⇔ 14:57, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note on closing time: Because Tariqabjotu has already gone through the mediating-an-RfM stage (twice, for that matter), which is the usual delay for nominations, I propose that this nomination will close around September 3, 2007 unless the result becomes ambiguous or a Committee member requests that it remain open longer via email/on the list. Cheers, Daniel 02:13, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome:

Appointed.

For the Mediation Committee, Daniel 00:40, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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