Wikipedia:Mediation Committee/Nominations/Ryan Postlethwaite

{{user|Ryan Postlethwaite}} 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))

Questions from Committee members:

• What are the core principles of Mediation Committee mediation? Armed Blowfish 22:02, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
• I think I've covered most of this in my statement, but to go over it again, I believe that a major principal of mediation is that it's an entirely voluntary procedure - all parties must want to have the dispute mediated, otherwise it simply won't work. I strongly believe that if editors seek mediation as a way to get ArbCom to hear the case, it again won't work - this isn't what mediation is for and if it is used in this way, the situation will only get worse. The core principal for any mediator is neutrality - if a mediator hasn't got that, the attempt to solve the dispute falls at the first hurdle. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:11, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

• Would you be willing to give up your sysop bit (or be sanctioned in a comparable way, if you are not a sysop) to protect the confidentiality of mediation? Armed Blowfish 22:02, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
• Adminship is no big deal - mediators don't need it, and it's only a few extra tools for editors with experience to help further with the project. I care a lot about the project - if for some reason, I had to give up my bit to move the project forward or to protect confidentiality, then so be it. Resolving major disputes on wikipedia is way more important than any little title or few extra buttons. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:11, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

• What prior experience do you have in resolving disputes on Wikipedia? Please provide links, and how will these experiences help you to be an effective Committee member? Daniel 22:02, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
• As I said in my statement, I've got an interest in arbitration - if you take a look at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Miskin/Workshop, you'll notice that the arbitrators took quite a few of my proposals to proposed decision. Likewise with Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff (although with the latter, you may find them hard to find in the sea of other comments!). I've solved a lot of disuputes between editors via email, so I'm sorry, I can't link to them, or really talk about them on-wiki. Something I did mediate was Wikipedia:Esperanza/Mediation - although it was in the middle of my exams, so I was a little inactive on it if I'm being honest. I guess most of you guys will see my dispute resolution skills on WP:AN and WP:AN/I which is where i operate most of all - I'll leave it upto you to decide if they're any good! Ryan Postlethwaite 22:19, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

• Would you be willing to take on a case from the unassigned section of Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Open Tasks so we can get a feel for you in action? Let us know which one you want and we can ask the parties to agree to a non-MedCom mediator... WjBscribe 01:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
• Of course I would, I was planning to email everyone later today to ask if that was OK. If possible, I'd quite like to mediate Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Fuel injection, as I have completely no conflict of interest with that one. I'll speak to all parties involved later today and make sure they're OK with me mediating. Ryan Postlethwaite 06:58, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

• Something's been bothering me that last few days. Take a look at [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FDev920_2&diff=147844314&oldid=147843781 this comment] by you. You are effectively opposing someone based on their conduct in a dispute you mediated. I know it wasn't a formal case, but still I'm concerned from a point of view of mediation privilege and neutrality. Anyway its been gnawing at me for a while and I wanted you to have a chance to address it. WjBscribe 11:07, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
• I understand your concerns here WJBscribe and it was something I thought about before opposing Dev's admin candidacy. Whilst I was writing it, I thought to myself, is this ethically correct of me? The esparanza mediation was a much more informal mediation than MEDCOM mediation, and by the end, I was not the only person attempting to mediate the dispute. The mediation itself didn't really solve anything, and the page is still fully protected as a result. My point on Dev's RfA was that admins have to be able to mediate disputes to some degree - if they have poor skills when in conflict, they can make situations far worse and can disruption to the project. If Dev had simply removed Ed's comments, I would have stayed out of it, what hurt me so much, was after the mediation had finished, Ed left due to him having cancer, he went to Dev's page to explain that he was leaving, and from what I recall, wished her good look - and she removed that as well, it was one of the things that upset me more than anything I've ever seen on the project. Maybe I did cross the boundaries this time, and it is unfortunate, but the cancer thing with Ed really really got to me. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:23, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
• In your opinion, is the use of Requests for Mediation discussion to oppose an RfA a breach of the privileged nature of mediation or not? (Note: Talking about RfM discussion here, not mediation efforts generally) Daniel→♦ 04:34, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
• Hi daniel, thanks for the question, and appologies for the late reply, as I explained, I've been away for a few days. Your question is actually quite a crucial part of what formal mediation is about, complete neutrality and all parties being there in order to solve the dispute, without having to care if something they say in the mediation will cause them to be sanctioned at a later date, or in the case of an RfA, have opposes due to that. If parties have to worry about what they say, it goes against the principals of mediation, which is quite simply, for everyone to put their cards on the table, say everything that they wish to say in a formal, structured environment without holding back so-to-speak. This is why private mediation often works better, no-one else apart from the people involved in the dispute can see the parties comments, and can therefore not use it against them in the future. To answer your question in short, yes is would be a severe break of the priviliged nature of mediation to oppose a candidate at RfA based on a mediation, or for that matter use it as evidence at arbitration - if this was allowed to happen, disputes at RfM wouldn't get solved. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:58, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Mediation Committee:

• Neutral – Ryan clearly understands the key aspects of Mediation: the neutrality of the Mediator, the confidential nature of Mediation, and the fact that Mediation is voluntary. He also has experience in Dispute Resolution, specifically with the ArbCom; however, I'm not fully convinced over his ability in the DR avenue of Mediation, which is a somewhat different business in almost all aspects from Arbitration. Therefore, I'd like to see Ryan take one of our cases (if possible), to demonstrate his ability as a Mediator, as well as an Arbitrator (of sorts :) best of luck, Ryan ~ Anthøny 08:53, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
• Support – Ryan's Mediation during his recent case was, no doubt, excellent, and it's just a shame it wasn't a success. However, having looked over his contributions to that case, and having seen an active Mediator, who's able to keep abreast of things, remain neutral and still provoke calm, civil discussion, I'm perfectly willing to allow Ryan to join us here on the MedCom ~ Anthøny 10:53, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support; I personally believe that public mediation should still not be a rationale for RFA opposition by a mediator; nevertheless, given that it's not an issue in private mediation, I see no reason not to support. Ral315 » 17:31, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
• I'm with Ral315. I've got faith this will turn out well, I'd just like to see something to judge on. Call it an oppose leaning support. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 12:32, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Support I have some reservations similar to those expressed by other members of the Committee, but all in all I see no one overwhelming reason to oppose. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 18:22, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

• The weirdest set of votes I've seen in a while... :) Daniel→♦ 06:42, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
• I personally support this nomination. Daniel→♦ 06:50, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support. I've seen Ryan around the project quite a bit and I would generally trust his judgment. He has the skill set and general temperament required for the committee. He's generally helpful and has shown in the past an ability to adapt and learn, so I doubt any of the mild concerns expressed will be a problem at any point. Vassyana 20:13, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Outside opinions:

• Support Ryan has shown great dedication to this project and I agree of his great ability to keep calm in all situations, hence my support. — Rlest 19:44, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
• I agree with Rlest, I think Ryan would be an excellent mediator. Obviously the MedCom's opinions are more valid here, but he has my support. Giggy _U^CP 01:21, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support I just felt compelled to comment on this. Ryan is one of those mysterious figures that I have never worked with and only seem to pass in the halls, metaphorically speaking. Yet I seem to always find myself reading his work, and I am struck by how level-headed and civil he is. More than once I have seen him wade his way into a dispute and come out the other side seemingly unaffected. I can't think of a better quality in a mediator than the ability to be moderate always. This is an editor that fulfills that quality nicely and I think that he is among the best assets the project has to offer. Trusilver 06:59, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Support I have come to trust Ryan as one of the few Wikipedians who is always fair and unbiased in his editing and decision-making. Everytime I have seen an issue in which he has taken part, he has succeeded in keeping an impartial and NPOV stand. Would/will be a great asset to the committee. Jmlk17 05:38, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support excellent editor and administrator, would make a fine mediator. Melsaran 10:32, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Comments:

• Neutral Comment As it seems Ryans membership to the mediation committee hinges largely on his performance in the fuel Injection mediation case of which I was one half I felt my comments may be of use. Normally I would not comment here as ultimately the mediation team know best what the qualities are that they want in new members. However, as the mediation broke down I did not want this to reflect poorly on Ryan, as sometimes, not everything can be resolved through mediation. If it could, the world would be a very different place. I felt that as a mediator Ryan was not on my side, which was not a bad thing. He took into consideration both parties comments and generally left the talking to us which was (at least in this case) for the best. What he provided in my opinion was a good text structure in which we could do that. I felt that while I certainly didn't have him on my side, I did have him ensuring a fair discussion took place. Although mediation did ultimately fail as one party left I think it was a small miracle we talked for as long as we did, had there been no intermediate party we would have likely exchanged small sentance long statements and then the petty back and forth name calling would have begun. Even when mediation failed it was in my opinion quite a clean fail. Although it failed, we have a great new diagram (in my opinon at least) for the article and the encylopedia is the thing to benefit at the end of the day, what more can you ask for? Sorry for the long paragraph but I hope it offers some insight into a mediated parties opinion of Ryan. He will make a good addition to the mediation team from what I have seen, just keep and eye on the rascal to begin with and he'll learn anything he doesnt already know relatively quickly ;) Thanks. WikipedianProlific^(Talk) 00:42, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
• Thank you for your comment, WikipedianProlific. I'm sure that voting Committee members will evaluate the entire mediation (a sentiment which I echo), rather than merely use a one-word 'analysis' of the situation. Unlike our sister-committee, there is rarely a definitive outcome to a mediation; even with some successful requests there can be downsides, and with unsuccessful requests there can especially be possible successes. Again, thank you for your comments. Daniel→♦ 06:07, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
• As a heads-up for the Committee, Ryan sent me a brief email apologising for his absense from Wikipedia and subsequently the delay in responding, as he's been "away for the past couple of days". He says he'll get on top of all the outstanding questions and comments tomorrow, so don't fret or oppose due to inactivity :) Cheers, Daniel→♦ 08:45, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Outcome:

• Appointed.
• :For the Mediation Committee, WjBscribe 00:02, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

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