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

Anthony cfc[edit]

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 – in previous months, 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 ^[talk] 01:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia, you have been denied. To me, this doesn't show community support. Ral315 » 23:12, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Although I acknowledge that this isn't RfA, I also endorse Ral315 on the final sentence of his comment - community trust. Let me reinterate that I acknowlede of the immense work you have put in to mediating not only JfJ2 but also MedCab case; for this, I am sure the involved disputants are greatful. However, an "appointment to the Mediation Committee is an official appointment to an official Wikipedia Committee, and requires a high level of community trust", and "nominees should be able to demonstrate a strong history of ... interacting positively with the community". I, unfortunately, don't feel 100% confortable with this given what I percieve to be your standing in the community, demonstrated partly in your recent RfA (which I found to provide an excellent guide to this criteria). I also endorse the majority of Ral's first paragraph fully. If you come back in three months (as is a required minimum), with no more major problems with the community, no more "grabs for power" (as Ral put it), and some more solid Mediator experience under your belt, I will seriously reconsider whether my current opinion has been swayed. However, for now, I do not feel you are ready for a formal position on a Wikipedia Committee. Sorry, Anthony. Daniel Bryant 08:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 01:32, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

• Ral would be correct in saying I just noticed the ORTS oppose - I am very inactive at Meta. anthonycfc ^[talk] 23:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• My original statement has been merged with the secondary statement I first posted below. anthonycfc ^[talk] 01:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Declined per 2 oppose rule ^demon^{[omg plz]} 22:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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