Jump to content

Wikipedia:Mediation Committee/Nominations/Steven Zhang 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of an unsuccessful nomination to join the Mediation Committee. Please do not modify it.

Nomination of Steven Zhang (2nd)

[edit]

Links: view · edit · watch

Submitted: 30 Jul 2012 (UTC)

Open for 4432 days

Candidate details

Fellow Mediators, I would like to present Steven Zhang for your consideration. He had a previous unsuccessful nomination in 2011, but his dispute resolution prowess has grown exponentially since then. I feel that he finally does have enough experience to be a great asset to the Committee. Not only has he volunteered extensively at DRN (which he created and has molded since its inception), he has been a coordinator and experienced mediator at MedCab. Two of his cases that I would like to bring to your attention are Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/02 October 2011/Holodomor and Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2011-06-22/Abortion-rights movement. Holodomor ended because of participants’ lack of participation, not Steven’s fault at all. And though Abortion rights ended up at ArbCom, it was because several editors chose to continually defy the consensus hammered out by Steven in the mediation. His calmness and ability to defuse tensions throughout this difficult, emotionally-charged case speak volumes about his skill as a mediator and illustrate perfectly why I see him as a potential asset to the Committee.

I do want to briefly address two issues. Steven was banned in 2008 for using two administrator accounts when he did not have the +sysop bit; his ban expire in early 2009. His full disclosure is at User:Steven Zhang/Disclosure and I’d frankly rather not rehash the whole thing. My personal opinion is that he has worked very hard to improve as an editor and as a mediator in the ensuing three years and that the incident is water under the bridge. The other is that Steven is currently a Wikimedia Foundation Fellow in the area of dispute resolution. I think that he would be easily able to separate the roles and would perhaps be even more effective because of his extensive examination of our dispute resolution processes. Also, I know that when I joined the Committee, trial mediations were often used to see how a candidate would perform in a real case. I think they are particularly useful in a nomination that has the potential to become contentious, like this one, and would like to offer that Steven co-mediate my current case, which opened just yesterday. If the Committee and participants agree, I feel that Steven would be best able to demonstrate his ability in this way. Thank you for your attention and I hope you agree that Steven is a wonderful mediator and would be a positive force on the Committee. Keilana|Parlez ici 23:40, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your nomination, Keilana. I accept. Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 01:56, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to everyone who has commented so far; I really appreciate your support and feedback :). However, I've decided to withdraw my nomination. This is for a couple of reasons:

  • Firstly, as Seddon has suggested, it may appear that there's a conflict between my work as a temporary fellow to reform this area and the duties of somebody on the mediation committee. I certainly don't want to cause any issues, either for the committee or the dispute resolution volunteers I consider my coworkers. This is an area I'm passionate about that I've put a lot of time into as a volunteer; making it harder or distracting from the work that must be done was the opposite of my intentions :)
  • Secondly, I don't think any of us quite know what the duties of the Mediation Committee's volunteers, or DR volunteers in general, will look like in six months. There's a lot of much-needed reform, driven by the community, that's going to completely change the landscape. It's an uncertain future; I'd much rather apply when I'm certain of the duties I'm volunteering to take up and confident that I am the right fit for the role. For now, I'm going to go back to establishing what DR will look like in the future - and I'd ask you all to WT:MEDCOM come join me and help improve the wiki :). Thanks, Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 22:05, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]


  1. What are the core principles of formal mediation?
    This is pretty much taken from my previous nomination - my perspective has changed very little. Formal mediation is a voluntary process that is the last step in the resolution of content disputes, and is where a neutral third party discusses issues that have been raised by a group of editors. With the assistance of the mediator, the participants work towards a consensus on the issues, and the mediator uses a variety of techniques to get them to that goal. There are a few requirements to mediation - the consensus of the parties has to fall within the scope of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and the primary focus needs to be the content - a mediator should guide the discussions away from user conduct issues as they do not fall within the scope of mediation. Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 01:56, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  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?
    Disputes on Wikipedia, in my view, enter the dispute resolution system due to a breakdown in effective communication on talk pages. This may be parties struggling to come to a compromise, they may lack the correct understanding of policy, there may have been extensive discussion where participants talk past each other or there are personal agendas that participants have which skew their view of the subject. By the time a dispute reaches MedCom, it has generally been under discussion for some time and is often heated, and can potentially escalate to the Arbitration Committee if left unresolved. The privelige of mediation allows for open communication between parties - which is important so the mediator can work with the parties to come to a workable resolution. Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 01:56, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  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 mediated a handful of disputes at MedCab in the past, and more recently been involved in resolving disputes at DRN. I've also been studying our dispute resolution process - which I feel has given me a greater understanding of what techniques can be used to resolve a dispute successfully as opposed to what can escalate the matter. That said, I acnkowledge that I may be a little but "rusty" - the last proper case I mediated was last year, and would appreciate the opportunity to co-mediate Keilana's open case, to demonstrate my ability to the committee. Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 01:56, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  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 stand by my view in my previous nomination that for a formal mediation to be successful, it needs an attentive mediator, and thus I could only see myself mediating one active case at a time - but I will endeavour to be available to mediate at least one case a month. Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 01:56, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  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. Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 01:56, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Additional questions from Lord Roem

  1. Steven, you were banned several years ago for what was a serious infraction of the rules. What assurances can you give the Committee that you have learned from your expierence, and that you truely understand the misguided nature of your past decision?
    Because of my actions, two administrators lost their adminship and the faith of the community in their administrators (and the RfA process) was damaged. Editing in the name of PeterSymonds was also a copyright issue - due to edits being attributed under CC-BY-SA, and I think my actions may be somewhat comparable to the Essjay controversy in terms of damaging the perception of Wikipedia to the larger world. I think that knowing all of this, that I lost the trust and respect of the community, that I edit under my real name and that because of my actions, the community was damaged, cements my understanding of the seriousness of my past actions. I've learned just how important it is to think before you act, and how serious the consequences can be if you don't think before acting. I've also learned that every time you do something on Wikipedia, it's visible to the entire world - your friends, your family and your employers. Unfortunately, it took me a long time to learn this lesson, and I feel I'm a better, more mature person than I was in 2008. I hope this answers your question. Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 09:01, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. In your answer to question #1, you said that since your last nomination your perspective on the principles of formal mediation has "changed very little". Since then, you have worked a great deal on the DRN board and have completed a massive survey on issues and concerns in the content mediation realm. None of that changed your views? What have you learned from this process?
    The reason I did the survey was to get the opinion of the community about dispute resolution, and in brief, respondents felt the process took too long and was very ineffective. The best way, in my view, is to improve the lower dispute resolution processes - make forums like DRN more effective and thus resolve more disputes, requiring less to be escalated to forums like the Mediation Committee. That said, while it would be ideal for MedCom to be more flexible with the acceptance of cases, the core principles of mediation shouldn't be affected. Mediation is unique compared to other processes - it allows a dedicated neutral third party (as opposed to DRN, which is often a many-to-many relationship) to work with participants to come to a resolution that they can all live with. While formal mediation has not been very successful as of late, I don't think this is because of how MedCom handles cases, I think this is due to the type of cases MedCom receives - last stage disputes that have been in the system for a long time. By lowering the bar for mediation, complex disputes can be escalated to MedCom before they are "hopeless cases", and receive more attention from a dedicated mediator rather than somewhere like DRN which works well for simple disputes. Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 09:01, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. What made you seek (or accept) this nomination, at this time? What was your prime motivation. Essentially, why now?
    I accepted this nomination because I feel my past experience as a mediator and my understanding of the dispute resolution processes would be an asset to the committee. Additionally, when I did mediate at MedCab (which is now closed) I'd always take on the tough cases - and there aren't an abundance of those at DRN. I enjoy the challenge of a complex mediation - it's much more satisfying to bring some peace to a contentious issue. I think that with the changes that have been discussed at the MedCom talk page to lower the bar of acceptance for disputes combined with changes at DRN will see a larger amount of disputes at MedCom - and when Keilana offered to nominate me and tag along with her mediation case, it seemed a suitable time - I can help another mediator resolve a dispute and be fully ready for the next one that comes along. Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 09:01, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I hope this answers your questions in a satisfactory manner. Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 09:01, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Additional questions from User:AGK:

1. Please give a complete account of your applications to any Wikipedia position. AGK [•] 13:45, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A: Off hand, I have applied for adminship twice - once in September 2009, once in November last year - both withdrawn as unsuccessful. I also applied to join the Mediation Committee last year, which was also unsuccessful.
2. As a Wikimedia fellow studying Wikipedia dispute resolution, do you believe it is appropriate to involve yourself at this stage in a formal dispute resolution body which is poised to implement reforms that are (at least in part) precipitated by your own efforts and research? AGK [•] 13:45, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A: Initially, yes, I didn't see the problem. A lot of my work has been at DRN - where all these reforms have started, and with the changes taking place there starting 1 August, an increase in cases at MedCom is to be expected. The ideas that I've been able to implement as a fellow were ones I would have implemented eventually as a volunteer - but the logistical, technical and research support I've received allowed me to get this done in a shorter timeframe. I applied to join MedCom to help resolve disputes, and I did not feel this would be a conflict of interest - but please see my withdrawal statement for some follow-up comments. Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 22:05, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much, AGK [•] 13:45, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of candidacy

[edit]
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.
  • Steven: The two cases listed above don't seem to be successful ones. Two questions: 1) Why do you think that participants "defied the consensus that [you] hammered out" in the abortion rights case? 2) Can you give an example of a successful mediation you have completed? Sunray (talk) 06:31, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Sunray. Thinking back on the Abortion-rights dispute, the issue was (and still is) quite a divisive one. I don't think I did a bad job of mediating the dispute - I just think that the consensus formed at the mediation didn't stick because some of the participants had strong personal views about the subject, and this affected their willingness to compromise. I don't think this is something I could have influenced by taking a different approach as a mediator - the vested interests of some of the parties was just too strong. The two cases presented above were the only disputes I had extensive involvement with at MedCab since my last nomination, and while some other cases were filed at MedCab, the bulk of them were't ripe or suitable for mediation - mainly because DRN took the bulk of the workload. I have done a lot of work at DRN; however some of my recent work has been around structuring disputes - discussions where I've helped resolve the underlying issues will be in the archives. One dispute that I took on in February at DRN - a dispute over the lede section of Thanksgiving - hammered out a workable compromise and then went quiet - but I think it demonstrates that I can get parties to come together to work towards an acceptable solution. I don't think resolving disputes isn't something you forget - it's like riding a bike, and I feel confident in my abilties to diffuse difficult disputes. That said, I fully acknowledge that I don't have a lot of recent "big" disputes that I can show that I've resolved, - this is why I hope the committee will allow me to co-mediate with Keilana, so I can assuage any concerns about my competency as a mediator. Regards, Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 07:25, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I read you as saying that the Abortion Rights case was a divisive topic with strongly held personal views and vested interests by participants; that you have skills in working with the structure of disputes; that you don't have recent "big" disputes to point to. You reference a dispute over the Thanksgiving lede, in which a workable compromise was hammered out, but then "went quiet." It seems to me that most MedCom cases are ones with strong vested interests. One of the core skills of a mediator has to do with listening through skillful use of open questions. In "structuring" a mediation I've found it important not to move too quickly from formulating the issues and identifying interests to looking for solutions. How do you think these cases relate to the skills of listening and the process I've described (albeit simplistically)? Sunray (talk) 16:38, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not quite sure I understand your question, but I'll try and answer it as best as I can. With DRN, we try and resolve disputes in a short timeframe, because a lot of disputes that show up at DRN are on a small scale. This approach doesn't work quite as well with mediation, one sole mediator has to take it a bit slower and more carefully, unlike DRN where you can have several volunteers working on a case simultaneously. If the dispute is too complex to handle at DRN, it should be booted up to MedCom where a TLC approach is taken. Our try groups have different near-term priorities. In mediation, you do have to be take more time, as you need to get all the information available. I've done both mediation and DRN, and I feel familiar with handling both types of disputes. I wanted to co-mediate a case to demonstrate this, however this is now moot. Regards, Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 22:05, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting

[edit]
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 as nom. Keilana|Parlez ici 23:40, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Steve is the person who taught me how to mediate. I never expected to be in MedCom before him! I have witnessed much of his work first-hand, and I know that he'll do a great job. His previous ban is pretty much ancient history now - he learned his lesson from that a long time ago, and has put in a great deal of hard work since then. Let's get him on the team already. :) — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 03:36, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This oppose is strictly due to Steve's current role at the Foundation something compounded by a lack of segregating edits. There is simply too high a COI particularly when there are planned sweeping changes to Medcom and content DR which are clearly (and probably to the benefit of the project) as a direct result of Steve's current position as a fellow. I am happy to give my support down the line once Steve has completed his fellowship and the changes that fellowship involve have come to fruition. Seddon talk 17:40, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decision of the Mediation Committee

[edit]
The Chairman will post the outcome of the nomination in this section. Nominations last no less than ten days.
The above nomination to join the Mediation Committee is preserved as a discussion archive. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Mediation_Committee/Nominations/Steven_Zhang_2&oldid=1136087952"