Wikipedia:Mediation Committee/Nominations/Keithbob

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

Nomination of Keithbob

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

Keithbob has over the last three years become one of the stalwarts of the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard and has had wide experience working in other administrative fora of en-Wikipedia. Except for DRN's founder, Steven Zhang, and Mr. Stradivarius, there is no other editor who has contributed as much or as regularly to DRN. Frankly, my only reservation in nominating him is that it may divert some of his attention away from DRN. Keithbob has offered to take on our currently pending case Christian terrorism as a trial and I believe we should take him up on that offer, not because of any particular doubt about his abilities, which have been fully proven at DRN, but simply so we don't have to wait for his approval before letting him take it.

For the sake of full disclosure, I would note that Keithbob has a withdrawn Request for Adminship, and was previously a participant in the TM arb case (where he was not sanctioned in any way and was cleared of the sockpuppetry allegations again raised in his RFA). I see no evidence of the concerns raised in those actions having been proven in his subsequent editing, and I believe Keithbob would be a substantial and positive contribution to the Committee. — TransporterMan (TALK) 15:07, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Nominee's acceptance of nomination and opening statement: Thank you Transporter Man, I accept the nomination and plan to address the candidate questions either this evening or Wednesday morning, as time allows.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:40, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Questions for candidate

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 are:

   • Mediation is voluntary so participants must desire to resolve the issue and be willing to participate in a moderated discussion with the intention of finding a resolution through discussion and compromise. However, if participants become disenchanted with the process they have the right to withdraw at any time.
   • The mediator’s role is in facilitating the emergence of a consensus agreement amongst a group of two or more editors who are in a dispute over a content issue. It is a role of guiding, moderating and focusing the discussion in an attempt to provide a fertile ground for compromise and consensus amongst the participants. The mediator has a neutral role and is not there to rule, usurp authority or provide judgment on the matters at hand.
   • The mediator’s position is one of neutrality in relation to both the content of the dispute and the parties involved in the mediation process.
   • Mediation is not a forum for addressing issues relating to behavior. Its domain is exclusively limited to issues and discussions of content.
   • The mediator must uphold the integrity of the encyclopedia and should not compromise the integrity of the project in an effort to meet the needs of a participant who is married to an unreasonable position.

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?

   All mediation communications whether off or on-WP are considered privileged and private. Matters discussed in the context of the mediation should not be discussed outside of mediation either during the mediation or after it has been completed. The reason for this is to provide the participants with a safe environment wherein they can openly discuss the matters at hand without worrying that their candid participation will be used to cast doubt upon their behavior in proceedings such as ArbCom or RfC/U that may occur after the mediation process has been completed. However, editors should be aware that behavior that is disruptive and which violates standard WP guidelines and policies is never acceptable, even within the privileged context of formal mediation. If a mediation participant is disruptive during the mediation process, and their behavior is examined at an appropriate venue after meditation, the Mediation Committee will not offer protected status for the misbehavior that occurred during the mediation process.

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?

   I have been an active volunteer at DRN on an almost daily basis for the past 12 months. During that period I have served three times as DRN Coordinator for a total of almost 6 months in the coordinator role. I would estimate that I have moderated at least 15 cases and made procedural closes on a few dozen others. Some of my cases have lasted more than a month and I feel like a significant number of them resulted in partial or complete resolution. I've also been active at Third Opinion and have participated in many RfC's and given input on more than one arbitration proceeding where I was not a party. I was also a party in a DRN case (before I became a DRN volunteer) and in 2010 I was a named party (no warnings or sanctions) in an arbitration case as well. So I have experienced the processes from both sides and I think that is an asset. I think that the comprehensive and varied nature of my experiences with the various dispute resolution forums will assist me in being an effective and productive member of the Mediation Committee.

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?

   Most of the time I enjoy the dispute resolution process and find it rewarding. It is a heartening and encouraging experience when editors who have a content disagreement come willfully and in good faith to the bargaining table and surrender to the process of discussion and consensus. In doing so the participants give their trust and respect to the moderator and this is empowering and rewarding for me. Of course there are times when participants are reluctant and entrenched in their position but I enjoy the challenge of facilitating an environment whereby the participant(s) can let down their guard a little and get off their position a bit for the greater good. I am not always successful in this regard but I enjoy the challenge as long as the participants are civil and mildly cooperative. If I am appointed I plan to be active on a fairly regular basis as long as taking a case does not interfere with my real life responsibilities.

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, I would.

Discussion of candidacy

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

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.

• Beat the nom support. Keithbob helped with MedCab, and also the Third Opinion project, and is well known as someone with good dispute resolution skills. PhilKnight (talk) 15:47, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support as nominator. — TransporterMan (TALK) 15:04, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support. I'm familiar with Keithbob's dispute resolution skills and his other editing, being the nominator for his RfA. He will be a valuable addition to the Committee, and frankly we should have asked him to run ages ago. As his nominator at the RfA I also made a detailed review of the claims brought up in the oppose section there, and found them to be baseless. If anyone wants to know more about that I'll be happy to provide more information. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 16:51, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support. AGK [•] 20:40, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 20:50, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support. Keithbob's experience seems pretty solid to me; I loved his response to question #4, especially "I enjoy the challenge of facilitating an environment whereby the participant(s) can let down their guard a little and get off their position a bit for the greater good. I am not always successful in this regard but I enjoy the challenge as long as the participants are civil and mildly cooperative." Brilliant! Sunray (talk) 23:03, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Decision of the Mediation Committee

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) 14:06, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

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