Wikipedia:Mediation Committee/Nominations/Wikimachine

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Wikimachine

Wikimachine (talk • contribs) I've been at dispute in the Japanese invasions of Korea (1592-1598) article, and I found that dispute is very problematic and time consuming. I also realized the importance of the means to mediate, after having been helped by the Meditation Cabal & the Wikipedia Requested Moves. But also, I've been frustrated with how these internal institutions are so inaccessible to newcomers. So I have few ideas for this committee, such as modifying "article currently under dispute" templates by adding "send help to the Mediation Committee" link, including them in welcome messages for new users, etc. My qualification is that I've been in Wikipedia for 1 year and half, 3093 edits, no record of being blocked (fix: I was blocked once, actually), no POV history (fix: I was POV on my 1st edits in Sea of Japan naming dispute & in discussions), etc. I'm also a policy debater, so I feel that I can objectivize disputes & handle them equally. (Wikimachine 05:41, 3 November 2006 (UTC))

Mediation committee:

• Can you provide some more examples of your experience? Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:55, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I admit, I don't have much experience, but I was asked to "mediate" some edit problems in the Ashley Highfield article by an anonymous user through e-mail.

Actually, I might resign my candidacy. I went over my user contributions, so that I could find some of my experiences to help me in the votes, but I rather found pretty POV edits in the discussions. My first year was POV to neutral, and, then in the last 6 months, I've been pretty neutral and critical. I guess it's up to you guys to decide. (Wikimachine 05:27, 4 November 2006 (UTC))

I resign. I need more time to prove myself, and there are many other editors who are much more deserving of the opportunities in the committee. I think that I have been continuously objective in the last 6 months, even in very controversial issues, but I need more time to make up for my first year -NPOV in my article edits, but POV in discussions. (Wikimachine 05:38, 4 November 2006 (UTC))

Outside opinions:

Comments:

• Could you please further explain your comment that you feel the importance of the means to arbitrate? Please note that mediation is NOT arbitration and the two entities, while both part of the Dispute Resolution process, are entirely seperate in their behavior and goals. -^demon^{[yell at me]} 14:24, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I changed "arbitrate" to "mediate". I forgot the difference between the two. The two examples that I gave were mediatory organizations. (Wikimachine 17:30, 3 November 2006 (UTC))

To explain, I think that mediation is very crucial because Wikipedia is very important. What you write is what everybody else reads. That's why I participate in Wikipedia, so that the rest of the world can use Wikipedia without having POV editors shaping their minds. Few times, I faced serious and engaging debates on very trivial matters for very important articles. Such include name of the article, etc. Had not there been these mediating institutions that set the tone of neutrality, the debate could have gone in awfully wrong direction. Mediation is a means of checking on people's morals and behaviors in conceptualized worlds such as the internet and Wikipedia specifically. You don't act as you do in real life because all actions are codified & put in to texts. You don't observe the other wince in pain, get insulted, etc. This allows people people space to act out of control, violently, and unreasonably while they edit in Wikipedia. But, in presence of mediatory institutions, this sense of justice and societal order is restored. I admit that some of my arguments in discussions (when I was inexperienced in Wikipedia) were POV or simply rude. Because I know and admit this, I know how to combat it. (Wikimachine 17:48, 3 November 2006 (UTC))

Withdrawn by candidate. Thank you for your time. Flcelloguy (A note?) 16:16, 4 November 2006 (UTC)