Wikipedia:Mediation Committee/Nominations/Lord Roem

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

Nomination by Lord Roem

Links: view • edit • watch Submitted: 3 Apr 2012 (UTC)

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

As illustrated below, I've found enjoyment from working with editors in the mediation process, and I would love the opportunity to formalize that role as a member of the Mediation Committee.

Since I created my account over a year ago, I've been intimately involved in all facets of the dispute resolution process on Wikipedia. From mediating cases at the Mediation Cabal, to researching trends in arbitration for the Signpost, I have been both interested and involved in the process by which disputes are handled on the encyclopedia. Indeed, it has been my interest in covering the arbitration process which impresses upon me the importance of the mediation process: if we can stop a dispute in its tracks, through consensus-building and cooperation between all parties, then we may just be able to stitch together editors in respect for each other so that the user conduct issues that evolve into arbitration-issues never occur.

An ideal world, maybe, but one we should strive for.

Along with the answers to questions below (and additional questions posted here), I am free for contact via my talk page or email.

Best regards, Lord Roem (talk) 01:50, 3 April 2012 (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?

   Formal mediation is the last step in the resolution of content disputes. Mediation must be a voluntary process, requiring the support of all involved parties, to end as a successful endeavor. If we don't have everyone with an interest at stake involved, then any agreement reached at the end would be in vain, for it would be at risk of being seen as illegitimate. Only compromises worked through a good-faith effort by parties who want to see success can in the end be successful. Additionally, it is important for mediators to know their own limitations. I have (sadly) seen more than one instance at MedCab where an inexperienced mediator will try to impose a binding decision. That mindset only begets more problems. A core value of mediation must be for the parties themselves to be accepting of a final compromise; the feeling of an 'imposed' solution will be on a shaky foundation, for it will always have the perception of bias and irregularity. This is not to say that the result of a formal mediation is not binding. Rather, it is as binding as the parties themselves make it. Consensus can change, and thus the path of a content dispute can change, but the actual imposition of a content decision, as if a 'Content Committee', would be inappropriate. Mediation must be a free and open process for all involved parties. That is the only way it can ever be successful, and that is what my experience has taught me time and time again.

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?

   Privileged communication is a vital part of the formal mediation process because it encourages editors to speak freely to mediators, and most importantly, to each other. If an editor feels their words can be used against them, the fog of mistrust and acrimony will seep back into discussion - something that mediation is specifically designed to prevent and take out of a conflict.

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 involved in about 10 Mediation Cabal cases, and more recently, a handful of discussions on the DR Noticeboard. I have handled cases stemming from a deeply-entrenched dispute with national interests pulling two sides (Gibraltar mediation), three editors in conflict over a highly-technical scientific dispute (Kendrick mass mediation), and even an argument between two editors (Mac Planck mediation). Some of these cases have resulted in parties pulling out due to the exhaustion of the process, and sometimes there is an inherent conduct element to the case that I, as a mediator, could not resolve (Kendrick mass went to ArbCom). Despite these setbacks, I have found that in each case, a step forward was taken, editors felt more comfortable to work together, and I grew tremendously as a mediator. In the Gibraltar mediation, the main dispute concerned the wording of a few paragraphs of text. It was an intense dispute. Yet, after several weeks of long discussion, the fire of intensity within the parties seemed to evaporate, and good-faith discussion was taking place. Mediation achieved its most important job: getting warring editors to sit down, and actually speak to each other. At the very least, that is an important goal in our process.

These experiences have taught me one important ideal that I would bring to the Committee if this nomination were successful. I have seen too many parties tired over the process, with the feeling that nothing will come out of more discussions. That feeling is both reasonable and understandable. After months of arguing on a talk page, editors will be distraught about proceeding with more discussions. That's where we as mediators step in. If we can aim to challenge that perception, encouraging active discussions so that cases don't end up in the 'stale' pile, this Committee can increase its ability to handle disputes with care and finality, so that cases that end up here are truly resolved. It may take some time, indeed it will be fraught with difficulty, but it must be a goal we are willing to pursue and willing to take on. If anything else, it is that mindset that I would bring to the Committee. I understand how the normal party feels, and that is an understanding I would take into every mediation I handle.

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?

I anticipate that I would be a fairly active member of the Committee. There may be some periods of the year I would be out (Winter holidays), but I tend to log in to Wikipedia at least once a day, so I can keep up with whatever matter I'd be handling.

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, of course.

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.

• Would you be open to immediately mediating a dispute? Xavexgoem (talk) 22:16, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Sure! Would love to hit the ground running. Lord Roem (talk) 22:27, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
    • Great. There's a case making its way through the pipes, but there are conduct overtones. That part of the case has been to ArbCom, where it was denied, and is stalled at ANI. Because the discussion would be privileged, you'd likely have to deal with that aspect without much/any outside assistance except from other MedCommers. This is all up in the air, though. Is this all acceptable? Xavexgoem (talk) 23:22, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
      • Yes. I have dealt with a similar type of case, albeit not as intense as your description suggests (the Kehrli-Kendrick mass article mediation), and significant progress was made. I'm definitely up for it. Lord Roem (talk) 00:15, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
• I loved your answer to question #3. Clearly you see mediation as an evolutionary, learning process. Many of us share that. I especially like the way you highlighted that even in so-called "unsuccessful" mediations, the parties learned and changed their behavior. Well said! Sunray (talk) 20:57, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

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.

• Support, has a proven track record of keeping parties on track in disputes. That alone is no small skill. Xavexgoem (talk) 22:05, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Experienced, with an impressive understanding of the privileged and voluntary nature of any mediation. AGK [•] 22:50, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support, I don't know Lord Roem, but it looks like he has what it takes to be a great addition to this committee. Sunray (talk) 20:59, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Exemplary candidate. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 22:09, 14 April 2012 (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.

Consensus obtained, welcome to the Mediation Committee Lord Roem. For the Mediation Committee, WGFinley (talk) 20:40, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

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