Ryan Postlethwaite ( talk · contribs) First I better introduce myself, I'm Ryan, I joined the project in October 2006, where I was known as Ryanpostlethwaite, I became an administrator in March 2007, then changed my username to Ryan Postlethwaite. That being said, I now hear you ask why do you want to be a member of the mediation committee? Well, I have quite an interest in the dispute resolution procedures - without it, the project would have crumbled long ago. I'm fairly active on arbitration pages - I like getting to the route of problems and attempting to sort them out in a methodical manor, I believe I've made some valued contributions to some recent cases. Personally, I think arbitration works well, and comes out with the right answers most of the time, what upsets me though is the fact that these problems couldn't be sorted out by the community and by the editors involved in the dispute. So why mediation? Well, I believe that formal mediation is a process by which users can put there cards on the table and discuss their dispute in an official process under the watchful eye of a good mediator. Mediation can only work if all parties agree to it, we can't force people into mediation - it would simply end in failure, neither should we force people into it - it should be an entirely voluntary path and all sides should enter mediation with a positive attitude, and more often than not, be willing to compromise. A good meditator should be 100% neutral - they are there to guide the process through, not to make decisions and lay down the law, but to simply steer it in the right direction. A poor mediator can make the situation a lot worse by forcing things upon parties - this goes back to my earlier point that users should not be forced into mediation and a mediator should respect that fact. Disputes arise all too often because users care so much about the project and a particular topic - they are not purposefully acting in a disruptive manor - they believe what they are doing is right and for the good of the project, that's why solving disputes here is often difficult. Mediation often opens the eyes of users and makes them realise that their editing may be involuntarily disruptive. So why do I think I'd make a good mediator? I believe I stay calm during disputes on the project, I always say - the best way to calm yourself down is to take yourself away from the computer for a bit, have a cup of tea and think about things from the other side. I also believe that calling a spade a spade is often a very bad idea, and often inflames situations. I feel my most important attribute is that I am able to be neutral at all times, I don't let my own personal opinion get in the way of de-escalating disputes - I look at the situaiton, attempt to understand it, and try and move people forward in the right direction - if the right direction isn't what I'd personally go for, then so bit it - the good of the project is at stake. I've mediated several disputes in emails and I've always found the best method of solving them is to get the users to talk about things, if the users stay civil to each other - they can get far. So in closing, I'd like to say that I believe MEDCOM is an asset to wikipedia, and I would be honored to join the team. If this nomination isn't successful, c'est la vie, and I'd still like to work with you guys in an unofficial role with the committee. Cheers, Ryan Postlethwaite 22:02, 23 July 2007 (UTC)) reply
Questions from Committee members:
Mediation Committee:
Outside opinions:
Comments:
Outcome:
Ryan Postlethwaite ( talk · contribs) First I better introduce myself, I'm Ryan, I joined the project in October 2006, where I was known as Ryanpostlethwaite, I became an administrator in March 2007, then changed my username to Ryan Postlethwaite. That being said, I now hear you ask why do you want to be a member of the mediation committee? Well, I have quite an interest in the dispute resolution procedures - without it, the project would have crumbled long ago. I'm fairly active on arbitration pages - I like getting to the route of problems and attempting to sort them out in a methodical manor, I believe I've made some valued contributions to some recent cases. Personally, I think arbitration works well, and comes out with the right answers most of the time, what upsets me though is the fact that these problems couldn't be sorted out by the community and by the editors involved in the dispute. So why mediation? Well, I believe that formal mediation is a process by which users can put there cards on the table and discuss their dispute in an official process under the watchful eye of a good mediator. Mediation can only work if all parties agree to it, we can't force people into mediation - it would simply end in failure, neither should we force people into it - it should be an entirely voluntary path and all sides should enter mediation with a positive attitude, and more often than not, be willing to compromise. A good meditator should be 100% neutral - they are there to guide the process through, not to make decisions and lay down the law, but to simply steer it in the right direction. A poor mediator can make the situation a lot worse by forcing things upon parties - this goes back to my earlier point that users should not be forced into mediation and a mediator should respect that fact. Disputes arise all too often because users care so much about the project and a particular topic - they are not purposefully acting in a disruptive manor - they believe what they are doing is right and for the good of the project, that's why solving disputes here is often difficult. Mediation often opens the eyes of users and makes them realise that their editing may be involuntarily disruptive. So why do I think I'd make a good mediator? I believe I stay calm during disputes on the project, I always say - the best way to calm yourself down is to take yourself away from the computer for a bit, have a cup of tea and think about things from the other side. I also believe that calling a spade a spade is often a very bad idea, and often inflames situations. I feel my most important attribute is that I am able to be neutral at all times, I don't let my own personal opinion get in the way of de-escalating disputes - I look at the situaiton, attempt to understand it, and try and move people forward in the right direction - if the right direction isn't what I'd personally go for, then so bit it - the good of the project is at stake. I've mediated several disputes in emails and I've always found the best method of solving them is to get the users to talk about things, if the users stay civil to each other - they can get far. So in closing, I'd like to say that I believe MEDCOM is an asset to wikipedia, and I would be honored to join the team. If this nomination isn't successful, c'est la vie, and I'd still like to work with you guys in an unofficial role with the committee. Cheers, Ryan Postlethwaite 22:02, 23 July 2007 (UTC)) reply
Questions from Committee members:
Mediation Committee:
Outside opinions:
Comments:
Outcome: