| Revision as of 01:32, 5 March 2007 editSeraphimblade (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Administrators46,191 edits →[]: Outside comment← Previous edit | Revision as of 01:34, 5 March 2007 edit undoArcticocean (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Extended confirmed users46,227 edits merge secondary and primary statementsNext edit → | ||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
| </center> | </center> | ||
| </div> | </div> | ||
| {{user|Anthony cfc}} ''This statement was revised at 01:11 05 March 2007 (]) to incorporate the response to ].'' | |||
| ⚫ | |||
| ⚫ | Around two months ago, I listed a request here but was turned down. However, I believe that having now successfully mediated a ], current/emeriti ] may have a different view of my abilities. | ||
| I have handled many cases for the ] and advocated on behalf of the ]; my current and recent cases can be viewed ]. The MedCom case I handled, ], was one that weaved in and out of ] for several weeks. The case had previously stalled under a different mediator. There were seven editors involved in the dispute, ranging from the newest user, ], to an ex-] member, ]. No party was willing to budge; I started by requesting each editor post a 200-word statement on: what they see as the problem, including examples and links to policy; and, what they would like to see changed. I also posted a notice at the top regarding civility. I then got the ball rolling by getting the editors talking; soon they were objecting to various statements, and wheedling them down to reasonable requests by editors on what they want changed. We then got into content discussion, with me intervening when necessary, including setting up a contact with the ] organisation. Finally, each editor posted a planned edit which was then discussed; when I perceived consensus, I implemented the edit. There were ten successfully edits, and none unsuccessfully (althoug it took some persuasion from myself to keep it at zero <tt>:)</tt>) | |||
| I am extremely active for the ], and I also do some ] work on lighted disputes. I have around a 10:1 success rate for MedCabal cases; my current Mediation cases can be viewed ]. However, I wish to concentrate on my recent ], in which I acted on behalf of a MedCom member to demonstrate my abilities. At the time, the case had not given me a chance to demonstrate my skills and unfortunately did not influence my first nomination in a positive manner. This time around, I believe that the Committee has the capacity to view me in a different manner. | |||
| To summarise, the key reasons justifying my suitability to be formalised as a Mediator is that I have demonstrated a clear ability to ] successfully, as well as stand up for the righteous path..in accordance with policy of course <code>:P</code> I have drawn up a ] outlining my approach to MedCabal cases (which would also be applicable to MedCom cases, should I be successful and have the opportunity to mediate for both organisations). I strive to remain neutral at all times. I have demonstrated a clear ability to set up a successful mediation environment, through organisation and if necessary cautions over incivility. | |||
| The case I mediated was on the article ], and took place ]. The case had previously been attempted by a current member, but the dispute resolution failed. I believe this speaks wonders for my abilities. At the opening of the mediation, I incorporated organisation into the case page from the very start: the first edit I made was an infobox at the top (with an attention-attracting icon) explaining the need for ], as well as guildelines for the page, and why I thought them necessary for a sucessful resolution. In summary, I enacted one of the key points of a mediator: to create and uphold a neutral venue for discussion between disputing editors through continious reinforcement of organisation, verbal statements on the need for civility, and at times cautions on the need to follow ]. I also maintained a readable page, through continious splitting of discussion into relevantly titled subsection, linking the headlines and, later, archiving the case page when necessary. | |||
| Finally, I've created a permanent bond between the disputing users through awarding each of then ] for incivility, not to mention having them interacting with one another on a daily basis for two months - not a small feat, when they were at a brick wall beforehand! | |||
| The key feature that made my case a success was my setting up of an easy-to-use system for editors to submit edits they wished to implement into the article: a two-teir header was created titled "Requested Implementations", and editors submitted three-teir headers underneath entitled "Compromise 1, 2, etc..". They then quoted the edit, linked to policy and the others objected to or agreed with the edit. When concensus was reached on an edit, I implemented it to the article, noted this on the subsection and archived. | |||
| I trust the emeriti and current mediators will use their best judgement in this matter, and I hope that the above information is sufficient to demonstrate my suitability to handle more challenging cases than distributed at ]. | |||
| In summary, this clearly demonstrates my abilities to formally mediate, and the fact that I went above and beyond the call of duty by awarding each user a barnstar, and setting up friendships between them, is simply an added bonus to my ] abilities. Of course the case wasn't without upsets - at one point, early on, I was completely falsely accused of being bias - absolutely untrue, of course, and it was soon found out to be so. | |||
| ⚫ | |||
| I also drew up a ] to outline my approach to MedCabal (and thus applicaple to MedCom) cases. This case - which was an amazing success - coupled with my continious, long-standing membership with the informal mediation group, the ], shows I am very able to be a continual member of this organisation. | |||
| However, concerns have been raised over my recent RfA - may I point out Mediation Committee nominations '''are not a ]'''..the nominations page header states so. Regardless, I feel I must justify errors in previous months. | |||
| There is no question about it - I was, in previous months, blinded my ]; I appeared power-hungry, and to an extent I was. Might I here point out that I have since eliminated all nominations from my mind - Adminship, etc.. - to concentrate on being permitted to formally mediate cases alongside a group of Wikipedians who I each hold in the highest respect, for one reason or another. | |||
| I now entrust the emerti and current mediators to analyse the above statement, and draw from it what I see as the correct conclusion - I have the sufficient aptitude to act as an impartial and neutral mediator in all of the cases I would mediate should I be permitted promotion, and be trusted and relied upon to keep the ] page backlog-free, and expand and update ] in partnership with an ever-expanding Wiki; and ever increasing means an every-rising amount of disputes. | |||
| ⚫ | <span style="font-family: Verdana">] <sup><nowiki>]]</sup></span> 01:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC) | ||
| ---- | ---- | ||
| Line 34: | Line 44: | ||
| '''Comments:''' | '''Comments:''' | ||
| *] would be correct in saying I just noticed the ORTS oppose - I am very inactive at Meta. <span style="font-family: Verdana">] <sup><nowiki>]]</sup></span> 23:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC) | *] would be correct in saying I just noticed the ORTS oppose - I am very inactive at Meta. <span style="font-family: Verdana">] <sup><nowiki>]]</sup></span> 23:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC) | ||
| ⚫ | *My original statement has been merged with the secondary statement I first posted below. <span style="font-family: Verdana">] <sup><nowiki>]]</sup></span> 01:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC) | ||
| ::Might I just take a few moments to make a brief statement here regarding my current position on Misplaced Pages; to be frank, I don't have one, and at this moment I do not wish for one. My only aim in addition to building the encyclopedia is to assist in resolving disputes; I believe that I've gained plenty of experience at the ], and later the ], and it is time to request the community's support in resolving more difficult disputes. | |||
| ::I am the first to admit it - I was power-hungry until recently. Applying for CheckUser was quite frankly ridiculous - I think it may have been when I was (to be honest) in a ]; I'm now on medication, and my condition has improved a hundred fold. I no longer suffer from the bouts of depression I did, and the "fantasy world" that comes with it - I'm more realistic and aware of the surroundings. I've made my newbie mistakes - just look at the number of RfAs that are rejected. Now, I'd like to start a fresh. I'd like to get my foothold in this organisation, and stay there for quite some time - for as long as I'm at Misplaced Pages, if possible. I'm becoming more impartial with each case I take on - for example, the current case at ]. Lastly, I'd like this to be my demonstration to the community that I'm to be trusted, and that I am a reliable ] and resolver of disputes. | |||
| ⚫ | |||
| <noinclude>]</noinclude> | <noinclude>]</noinclude> | ||
Revision as of 01:34, 5 March 2007
Anthony cfc
Anthony cfc (talk · contribs) This statement was revised at 01:11 05 March 2007 (GMT) to incorporate the response to Ral315.
Around two months ago, I listed a request here but was turned down. However, I believe that having now successfully mediated a RfM, current/emeriti mediators may have a different view of my abilities.
I am extremely active for the Mediation Cabal, and I also do some AMA work on lighted disputes. I have around a 10:1 success rate for MedCabal cases; my current Mediation cases can be viewed here. However, I wish to concentrate on my recent Request for Mediation, in which I acted on behalf of a MedCom member to demonstrate my abilities. At the time, the case had not given me a chance to demonstrate my skills and unfortunately did not influence my first nomination in a positive manner. This time around, I believe that the Committee has the capacity to view me in a different manner.
The case I mediated was on the article Jews for Jesus, and took place here. The case had previously been attempted by a current member, but the dispute resolution failed. I believe this speaks wonders for my abilities. At the opening of the mediation, I incorporated organisation into the case page from the very start: the first edit I made was an infobox at the top (with an attention-attracting icon) explaining the need for civility, as well as guildelines for the page, and why I thought them necessary for a sucessful resolution. In summary, I enacted one of the key points of a mediator: to create and uphold a neutral venue for discussion between disputing editors through continious reinforcement of organisation, verbal statements on the need for civility, and at times cautions on the need to follow WP:CIVIL. I also maintained a readable page, through continious splitting of discussion into relevantly titled subsection, linking the headlines and, later, archiving the case page when necessary.
The key feature that made my case a success was my setting up of an easy-to-use system for editors to submit edits they wished to implement into the article: a two-teir header was created titled "Requested Implementations", and editors submitted three-teir headers underneath entitled "Compromise 1, 2, etc..". They then quoted the edit, linked to policy and the others objected to or agreed with the edit. When concensus was reached on an edit, I implemented it to the article, noted this on the subsection and archived.
In summary, this clearly demonstrates my abilities to formally mediate, and the fact that I went above and beyond the call of duty by awarding each user a barnstar, and setting up friendships between them, is simply an added bonus to my DR abilities. Of course the case wasn't without upsets - at one point, early on, I was completely falsely accused of being bias - absolutely untrue, of course, and it was soon found out to be so.
I also drew up a Mediation Policy to outline my approach to MedCabal (and thus applicaple to MedCom) cases. This case - which was an amazing success - coupled with my continious, long-standing membership with the informal mediation group, the MedCabal, shows I am very able to be a continual member of this organisation.
However, concerns have been raised over my recent RfA - may I point out Mediation Committee nominations are not a RfA..the nominations page header states so. Regardless, I feel I must justify errors in previous months.
There is no question about it - I was, in previous months, blinded my Bipolar disorder; I appeared power-hungry, and to an extent I was. Might I here point out that I have since eliminated all nominations from my mind - Adminship, etc.. - to concentrate on being permitted to formally mediate cases alongside a group of Wikipedians who I each hold in the highest respect, for one reason or another.
I now entrust the emerti and current mediators to analyse the above statement, and draw from it what I see as the correct conclusion - I have the sufficient aptitude to act as an impartial and neutral mediator in all of the cases I would mediate should I be permitted promotion, and be trusted and relied upon to keep the WP:RFM page backlog-free, and expand and update MedCom in partnership with an ever-expanding Wiki; and ever increasing means an every-rising amount of disputes.
anthonycfc 01:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Mediation committee:
- There's no doubt that you want to help. And it's true that your mediations with the MedCab and with Jews for Jesus have gone well. However, my reasons for opposing you in your last RFA, and your last MedCom application stand. You've requested numerous powers and positions within the Misplaced Pages and Wikimedia community, in a relatively short period of time. That shows a clear wish for power- I cannot support anyone with that much of a need for power. In fact, I can't think of any formal position you haven't applied for, that is even possible to obtain as a non-admin.
- I find it interesting that less than 24 hours before starting this nomination, you asked for my opinion on your previous requests. This came out of the blue- the prior MedCom nom was a few months ago, and the Rfa and OTRS input I gave were made about a month ago. Perhaps you just realized that I had opposed you receiving OTRS access; this is possible. But I can't ignore the possibility that you asked me this either to try to get my support on this nom, or to have me say something that would make an oppose vote here seem hypocritical. Whether this was your intent or not, I can never know for sure, but the timing is suspicious.
- Finally, I require some degree of community support (not adminship, but something showing that you've got support from at least part of the community. Every time you have requested a position on Misplaced Pages, you have been denied. To me, this doesn't show community support. Ral315 » 23:12, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Outside opinions:
- I can't speak to Ral's objections, but I was very impressed with Anthony's mediation on Jews for Jesus. That dispute had been running a long time, and getting it to a successful conclusion was no small feat. I hope MedCom will consider his application carefully, I certainly think he could do some good. Seraphimblade 01:32, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Comments:
- Ral would be correct in saying I just noticed the ORTS oppose - I am very inactive at Meta. anthonycfc 23:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- My original statement has been merged with the secondary statement I first posted below. anthonycfc 01:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC)