Wikipedia:Mediation Committee/Nominations/Anthony cfc

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

[edit] Anthony cfc

Anthony cfc (talk · contribs) The Meditation Committee is a vital role in the dispute resolution process; it is essentially one of the last resorts before coming up against the ArbCom. I have been involved with every part of the dispute resolution process - I am a regular AMA advocate; a member of the med cabal; I'm training my adopted users to avoid disputes in the first place; I have went to disputing user's talk pages and calmed things down. Now, however, I'd like to continue this good work on the Meditation Committee and I believe there is no time like the present. I believe I can bring my tailored neutrality policy to the MedCom in addition to WP:NPOV to create a more efficient committee. Anthony 17:16, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Mediation committee:

• Leaning towards support, but would like to see some specific disputes that you have resolved, that have been difficult/controversial etc. If you could like to some of those that would be great, thanks :) —Xyrael / 10:43, 30 December 2006 (UTC) Support, would do well with the committee. —Xyrael / 17:24, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

As stated on User talk:Xyrael, the case files appear to have been deleted after they were closed so I will leave you with this example - I dealt with the Google bomb article, which I managed to prevent being taken to the ArbCom; furthermore, through the advocating process of the case I was required to contact the Google Copyright Office. --Anthonycfc 17:32, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

For more evidence, see my current Med Cabal case which is dealing with the entire WikiProject Math possibly defying the Mathematics Manual of Style. --Anthonycfc 20:33, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose ^demon^{[omg plz]} 18:55, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Clarification: I was asked to clarify my reasons for opposing, and I feel that they are fairly major. First and foremost, I happened to come across this on meta, entirely by accident. However, I am glad I did. This, in my opinion, shows a lack of knowledge of process, specifically in how CheckUser is handed out (which, might I add, is rare for a non-ArbCom/non-former-ArbCom user to obtain). Secondly, and of equal severity is an accusation of bias on a mediation in which he is supposed to be an informal mediator. I am looking in to this accusation further. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 22:54, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Just to note, the accusation of bias was cleared up; the user had misinterpreted some information. Attention is directed to the case page that I am mediating to view the full discussion. It is important to remember that simply because an editor has stated another is bias, does not make it true. Kindest regards, Anthonycfc ^{[T • C]} 00:45, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose, -- Shyam ^(T/C) 16:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. Ral315 (talk) 04:29, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Outside opinions:

Comments:

• That's the 2 opposes, so I'd like to thank everybody who posted their opinion. I will take your contributions on board, and strive to live by the lessons I have learned from this nomination when Mediating for the Cabal and Advocating for the Assossiation. I'd like to finish off mediating my current case - I believe that I have really brought this dispute forward and I'd like to see it off into the archives. Anthonycfc ^{[T • C]} 02:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted. Ral315 (talk) 04:35, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

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