Wikipedia:Mediation Committee/Nominations/^demon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] ^demon

^demon (talk • contribs) I've recently been trying to get more heavily involved with Wikipedia, and I believe I've been doing a very good job so far in fighting vandalism. However, the procedural aspects of Wikipedia particularly excite me, and the idea of being on a committee such as this is quite intriguing. I don't like when people fight, especially over content. I've dealt with content disputes before (with Ikonboard, which has slowly worked out and has remained in it's current form for some time now, without major changes to the history), and am currently trying to informally mediate one myself (Actuarial Outpost). I would love to be given the opportunity to further help the Wikipedia community focus less on the nitpicking and try to get back to writing a good encyclopedia. Thanks for taking the time to consider this nomination. ^demon^{[yell at me]} /23:09, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Mediation committee:

• support Given that this user has shown initiative (actuarial outpost) and talk on irc, coupled with current shortage, I'd be willing to let demon give it a try. -- Drini 04:02, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
• Support — Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 13:11, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Ral315 (talk) 05:49, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
• Support --Wisden17 16:09, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 10:56, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Outside opinions:

Comments:

• Comment: I've briefly reviewed the Actuarial Outpost article talk and everything looks good. However, a few standard questions: your edit count is relatively low. Why do you feel that you know Wikipedia policy well, and why do you feel that you are qualified? Also, I note several old messages (mostly from a few months ago) on your user talk page informing you of doing something incorrectly (for example, editing an old archive). Do you feel that your grasp of policy and standards of Wikipedia has improved since then? How so? Finally, in your failed RfA last December, you write "I cannot say that I've contributed significant content to any article." Has this changed? How so? You also write that there was a content dispute on L'Arc~en~Ciel. Would you mind expanding on this? Scanning the talk page and archive, I see two posts from you. How did you feel about the compromise, and what was your role in it? (Sorry, I know this must feel like a grilling. :-) ) Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:02, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

• Responses: Thanks for your support on the Actuarial Outpost issue. I personally believe that we all make mistakes and as we work on Wikipedia, we learn from those mistakes (re: editing an archive). At the time, I wasn't aware that editing a users' talk archive would be such an issue, as I was merely trying to clean up double redirects to the L'Arc~en~Ciel. I took that comment in stride, and I feel that something valuable was learned from the expereince. Also, from my RfA, I said that because it's true. I do not see myself as a very good writer. In any article, you will never see me contribute a significant amount of new content. This is because I don't feel my writing style is in line with the way the majority of Wikipedians write articles (this isn't to say I would write POV, of course). However, when I do work on an article, I do a lot of cleanup. I've been a bit more active recently trying to Wikify poorly written articles with more internal-wikilinks, as well as trying to break articles up with better headers. Furthermore, I never feel as though I'm qualified to write fresh content. I feel that my knowledge on all articles is so lacking compared to everyone else's, that my contributions aren't worthy when weighed against theirs. This is the primary reason I don't write a large amount of fresh content. Also, I don't know why I mentioned the L'Arc debacle in the RfA. It was actually a naming convention dispute (whether to use dashes or tildes in the title), in which I merely voiced an opinion that ended up being the majority opinion (and therefore was adopted). Finally, on Wikipedia policy. Are we ever perfect? Do any of us know all policies? I'm sure there are those we know better and can more quickly reference (ie: V, NPA and CIVIL), but how often do you reference and enforce WP:OFFICE? Also, I believe that all policy can be interpreted in two ways, by the letter or by the spirit. And in each instance of a dispute, you must weigh in on what is more important. In my opinion, you more often need to go with the spirit of a policy. However, there are (and will always be) instances in which you must say "Section 1 clearly forbids you to do this..." and lay down the letter of the law. The role of a mediator is not to enforce policy (that's the job for sysops and ArbCom). Rather, it's the job of a mediator to help resolve the issues between users, calling on Wikipedia policy where needed, but mostly calling on their own judgement as a human being to see beyond people's problems and see a solution that is potentially agreeable by all. I think I covered all the bases :) ^demon^{[yell at me]} /02:01, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks for the reply! Could you clarify what you meant in the last part of your above comment (The role of a mediator... agreeable by all.)? For example, if two users are engaged in a dispute and you believe one editor's insertions are clearly against Wikipedia policy as they are unfounded, unsourced, biased, and defamatory, what would you do? Is that considered "enforcing" policy, in your view? Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 01:08, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

• Well, that's what I meant by using our best judgement as people. Obviously in a situation like that, Wikipedia policy must prevail against individual opinions, as I mentioned when I said However, there are (and will always be) instances in which you must say "Section 1 clearly forbids you to do this..." and lay down the letter of the law. As I said, I feel it's primarily the role or Sysops and ArbCom to enforce policy, but it is also the role of the mediator to use policy where needed. Finally, I said that the decisions come to at mediation should be agreeable by all, and this is true. That is the one goal that should be attained in each and every case of mediation, which is agreement by all parties involved in a dispute, while still sticking to the core principles and policies of Wikipedia. ^demon^{[yell at me]} /18:54, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Promoted. Ral315 (talk) 01:00, 27 June 2006 (UTC)