Wikipedia:Mediation Committee/Nominations/NicholasTurnbull

This Mediation Committee member's username was changed to User:Tristessa de St Ange in September 2011.

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

Nomination of NicholasTurnbull by Xavexgoem[edit]

NicholasTurnbull (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

NicholasTurnbull hardly needs introduction: he was one of the first people at MedCab (predating most of us), and has solved innumerable cases over there. He'd gone on a break, and now he's back! Xavexgoem (talk) 00:17, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please sign to accept your candidacy here: I gratefully accept. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 16:34, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for candidate[edit]

The first five questions are the 'default' questions asked of every candidate. Members of the Committee may pose further questions in this section, and should sign any questions they add.

What are the core principles of formal mediation?
To answer this question fully, I shall split it into two parts. The first part is to describe core principles of mediation in general on Wikipedia, since it is something of a special case as goes the wider subject of alternative dispute resolution. Communication is extremely low bandwidth on a wiki and, as such, many disputes and disagreements are in part fuelled by the difficulties of precisely and comprehensively communicating with other editors when collaborating on articles. Talk page messages are time-delayed and "passive" in that a real time communication mode is not fully possible (unless talk page contributors are constantly reading the page) and so therefore the goal of mediation -- in summary, the assisted development of common consensus and an agreed-upon course of action to resolve a dispute -- is modified by this constraint. Therefore, the core principles of mediation on Wikipedia are those of 1) precision and comprehensibility of communication; 2) rapidity of resolution (since disputes tend to become harder to solve if they are left to "rot"), 3) mediator facilitation of a discussion atmosphere conducive to the development of an acceptable solution; and 4) the principle of Sutton's law, that one should first consider the obvious possible solutions and causes of disputes before trying anything more elaborate.

Now, these principles apply to both formal and informal mediation. This method of working, in fact, does not change between the styles of mediation. So to answer the question, what does change? The answer is that formal mediation must firstly be undertaken in a manner that offers parties specific guarantees and some form of mediation "due process", such as that mediation proceedings cannot be used against the parties (which relates to question 2 below) and that the mediation will follow some sort of formal format. This is in contrast to informal mediation, where the mediator is not only not working under official imprimatur of Wikipedia dispute resolution, but also may "step outside the box" a little in their approach and process. Finally, formal mediators are appointed by some form of appointment process (in this case, through this vote by the Committee) rather than simply being interested volunteers willing to offer their services. As such, they are bound by standards of professional ethics and conduct in a way that informal mediators simply aren't.

But leaving aside these differences, the core principles are exactly the same, as I have described above. They relate to communication, to fairness, to a willingness to assist and to neutrality of perspective. They relate to cooperation and the development of cooperation; consensus, and the forming of consensus. Mediation is about bringing disparate views together through understanding, be it formal or informal. It is my belief that formal mediation should not mean "stiff mediation", "bureaucratic mediation", or "inflexible mediation"; it should simply mean mediation with guaranteed process, guarantees, and standards.
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?
Well, it's rather hard to imagine why parties who had exhausted discussion and informal methods of resolution would agree to a solution (be it binding or not) and be honest in their communication towards consensus building, if either that solution or communication would be likely to be used as rope with which to hang them in later tranches of WP:DR. Fear and a perception of injustice, be these feelings justified or unjustified, are the hallmark of what produces content and conduct disputes in the first place. In informal mediation, this is simply left to trust. Most of the time this rule will, in fact, still be respected; but there is a definite advantage for the success of the mediation in the parties being guaranteed this. It means the mediation is more of an amnesty, that the guns truly are left outside of the military commanders' tent prior to the round table discussion, that parties cannot use the mediation against each other if the dispute is not solved. In addition, it allows the "mediation space" of the discussion to be capable of giving parties a chance to get the whole thing off their chest, without fear of discipline for what they state in the mediation.
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 believe the WP:MEDCAB should speak for itself in that regard. I took over as coordinator of the Mediation Cabal in 2005. As I write on my talk page, in those days I practically was the Mediation Cabal! It was largely inactive at that early stage, and I was mainly the sole mediator and maintainer of the process, which had been basically an idea developed by User:Kim Bruning and other collaborators. I redeveloped the initiative and process into what you can see now on the MedCab page (it has changed little since my retirement), and gradually coaxed it into being part of the WP:DR workflow through managing the process, fine-tuning the mediation aspects, and recruiting mediators onto working for the Cabal. It is now a major dispute resolution initiative, handling a large throughput of cases; its workflow works reasonably well now. Having been a Wikipedia mediator since 2004 -- a Google search shall no doubt turn up my cases -- I have, I believe, an indepth and comprehensive level of experience on the topic that will be of service to the Committee.
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 be mediate a case at least occasionally?
I should imagine that I will have the resources to offer a good few hours a day at least, and therefore I shall be able to take a reasonable level of workload on. Were I appointed to serve on another Committee, I would have to divide my time according to whatever that new workload was; it is hard for me to anticipate. Nevertheless, I do not expect to be appointed to the Arbitration Committee at any point in the future, since I do not intend to nominate myself for it.
If appointed to the Committee, will you be willing to subscribe to the Committee's private mailing list, to regularly lead the (small number of) e-mails that are exchanged over the mailing list each month, and actively participate in discussions?
Yes. I should be glad to do so.

Discussion of candidacy[edit]

General discussion of the candidacy should go here, rather than on the talk page. Community opinions on the merits of the candidacy are especially welcome, and should be made in this section.

(Chairman comment) I'll close this discussion at some point this week (giving the usual 48 hours heads-up beforehand). I had forgotten to send an announcement over the mailing list that this nomination had been filed, which might explain why only two MedCom members have opined so far, but I've done so now - so things will I expect pick up. AGK [•] 17:24, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(Chairman comment) Closing in 24 hours. AGK [•] 10:54, 26 February 2011 (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 votes, it will be declined.

Support as nom. Xavexgoem (talk) 00:18, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - A trustworthy and experienced mediator. PhilKnight (talk) 20:49, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seddon ^talk|^WikimediaUK 11:42, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 17:44, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 20:33, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Decision of the Mediation Committee[edit]

The Chairperson of the Committee will indicate in this section what the outcome of the discussion is, before closing the nomination. Nominations last no less than ten days.

Promoted. For the Mediation Committee, AGK [•] 12:32, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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