The Mediator role account is a danger to the community
I worry intensely about how this "role account" got started, and where it's heading. Although the concept of mediation sounds very nice, please note that the person who conceived of it was banned for extremely anti-social on-line behavior: User:EntmootOfTrolls (or "EofT"). This user scares me more than any other user; I came close to putting an emergency 'block' on his account when he seemed to be physically threatening user:RK (the 'sharia law' remark sounded like a real threat, not at all akin to Rampton's obvious jest).
It is this contradiction between the "nice" sound of the concept and the "nasty" character of its proponent that worries me so much. Given that EofT has caused so much heartache and fear in the past, I worry that this scheme could be some sort of trick to cause similar trouble in the future. I'm especially suspicious of the aspect of anonymity; at a minimum, I'd want the developers to keep an IP log of who's using the account at any time; but I worry that this won't be enough. I would feel somewhat better if I myself knew who the 'Mediator' was at all times, but that raises other issues and does not settle all my current concerns.
Why can't people who want to mediate, simply do so under their own names? Or just create a dummy account and mediate under that (each with his own dummy account)? I worry that there's some trickery or treachery brewing: EofT is very smart, and he scares me. I don't like or trust what's happening now.
Ed Poor, aka Uncle Ed
On Wednesday 15 October 2003 20:00, Poor, Edmund W wrote:
Why can't people who want to mediate, simply do so under their own names? Or just create a dummy account and mediate under that (each with his own dummy account)? I worry that there's some trickery or treachery brewing: EofT is very smart, and he scares me. I don't like or trust what's happening now.
I believe that he is following this list, so you have just told him that you are afraid of him. What is the next thing that you will do for him? :)
Role accounts are a very, very bad idea. I'm quite surprised the discussion about them actually had some support. Huge security risk, and goes against building trust. I've always found pseudonymity (ie, usernames) far superior to anonymity... and besides, it'd be folly to believe any role account would reliably mask you: if you have enough experience with someone's style and mindset, it can become very easy to recognize them in whatever guise.
-- Jake
On Wed, 15 Oct 2003, Jake Nelson wrote:
Role accounts are a very, very bad idea. I'm quite surprised the discussion about them actually had some support. Huge security risk, and goes against building trust. I've always found pseudonymity (ie, usernames) far superior to anonymity... and besides, it'd be folly to believe any role account would reliably mask you: if you have enough experience with someone's style and mindset, it can become very easy to recognize them in whatever guise.
Very much agreed. However, an idea I've seen used before is to flag users 'in a role' with a different (but non-anonymous) username, to make the point that this is user A acting in the role of X, rather than just as their regular selves. This is sometimes useful.
I'm not sure it is going to be useful on Wikipedia, but IF we ever have officially anointed anythings (mediators, arbitrators, whatever) then it is probably a good idea for edits made 'under that role' to be flagged as such.
I'd be loath to give up Wikipedia's relatively flat and uncomplicated structure for such a thing. We currently have a 4-level structure (anon IP -> logged-in user -> admin -> Jimbo (if one considers developer status 'outside' this system)) but we have over time set up a system where a very few powers are (by consensus or fiat) assigned to Jimbo and everything else is pushed out as far as we can. Anon IP users can do almost everything a logged-in user can do and (by consensus) the power of admins extends only so far as some extra housekeeping/janitorial functions a little too dangerous to hand out to everyone, plus the power to block vandals in extremis.
Creating another special class of users is not IMO required; keeping a list of people willing to step in and mediate / arbitrate controversial issues on a basis of no real extra power is probably good enough.
I certainly strongly oppose the User:Mediator idea of a solitary, unknown-to-everyone mediator. A solitary known-to-few anonymous-to-most is not AS bad, but I still don't like it. Do we need an empowered anonymous 'Voice-of-Jimbo' individual? I'd rather have known, non-anonymous individuals take up tasks. There is, as suggested by some, a problem with people not accepting mediation by someone they think has ideological 'baggage', but the fact remains: they might be RIGHT in their rejection of such a person.
-Matt
Matthew J. Brown wrote:
Very much agreed. However, an idea I've seen used before is to flag users 'in a role' with a different (but non-anonymous) username, to make the point that this is user A acting in the role of X, rather than just as their regular selves. This is sometimes useful.
I'm not sure it is going to be useful on Wikipedia, but IF we ever have officially anointed anythings (mediators, arbitrators, whatever) then it is probably a good idea for edits made 'under that role' to be flagged as such.
Ok, this I can see. I could definitely get behind a flag/label scheme. I don't know that mediators need official designation, given the nature of mediation... but maybe. Good to have a list of the known willing and able, anyway. But arbitrators, etc... yeah. 'Soandso (Arbitrator)', 'mav (Treasurer)' (notice how once the idea gets out, it's like it's official or inevitable or something? I'm just making an example...)
I'd be loath to give up Wikipedia's relatively flat and uncomplicated structure for such a thing. We currently have a 4-level structure (anon IP -> logged-in user -> admin -> Jimbo (if one considers developer status 'outside' this system)) but we have over time set up a system where a very few powers are (by consensus or fiat) assigned to Jimbo and everything else is pushed out as far as we can. Anon IP users can do almost everything a logged-in user can do and (by consensus) the power of admins extends only so far as some extra housekeeping/janitorial functions a little too dangerous to hand out to everyone, plus the power to block vandals in extremis.
Creating another special class of users is not IMO required; keeping a list of people willing to step in and mediate / arbitrate controversial issues on a basis of no real extra power is probably good enough.
Well, I foresee a level between admin and Jimbo at /some/ point- basically, representatives from each language, including English, rather than representatives /to/ English - no rush, however. And you're right, developer is orthogonal to this. No need for mediators/arbitrators to have any special powers (though arbitrators will need to be operating under mandate and within clear boundaries).
I certainly strongly oppose the User:Mediator idea of a solitary, unknown-to-everyone mediator. A solitary known-to-few anonymous-to-most is not AS bad, but I still don't like it. Do we need an empowered anonymous 'Voice-of-Jimbo' individual? I'd rather have known, non-anonymous individuals take up tasks. There is, as suggested by some, a problem with people not accepting mediation by someone they think has ideological 'baggage', but the fact remains: they might be RIGHT in their rejection of such a person.
Bingo. I agree on all counts. (Though a Metatron account makes for some interesting ideas... hmmm)
-- Jake
Matt wrote in part:
Creating another special class of users is not IMO required; keeping a list of people willing to step in and mediate / arbitrate controversial issues on a basis of no real extra power is probably good enough.
For mediation, I agree. For arbitration, I'm not so sure. See, an arbitrator makes a decision which must be obeyed; this must be agreed to ahead of time, and be enforceable. So an arbitrator ought to have some degree of power-endowed-by-Jimbo.
That said, I'd like the mediator bit to start up before the arbitrator bit. Who knows, maybe it'll be sufficient! So I agree with your broad point, that we don't need to -- hence shouldn't -- unflatten the hierarchy.
I certainly strongly oppose the User:Mediator idea of a solitary, unknown-to-everyone mediator.
Of course, that's a bad idea. I'm not one to reject ideas just because 142 came up with them, but jeez.
There is, as suggested by some, a problem with people not accepting mediation by someone they think has ideological 'baggage', but the fact remains: they might be RIGHT in their rejection of such a person.
True, I think that there are situations where Ed should not mediate, and probably even people that he shouldn't mediate conflicts among; because of Ed's few passionate positions and the few users that dislike him. This is /despite/ the fact that I HEREBY NOMINATE ED POOR FOR MEDIATOR, since he seems to be good at this sort of thing, almost all of the time.
But we should have more than simply a list of volunteer mediators. The mediators, in volunteering, should make a study of mediation; and Wikipedia (or the English Wikipedia) should have some ideas about how mediation ought to be done, discussed and written down. Ed recently wrote that he has a lot to learn about mediation; and this does not surprise me, but I believe that he can learn it.
It may take a certain kind of personality to understand well the kind of detachment that a mediator should take; a mediator can't try to get /their/ opinion chosen, but has to focus on resolving the /disputants'/ positions. Accordingly, I HEREBY NOMINATE MAVERIC FOR MEDIATOR, since this sort of thing is right up his INTJ alley.
-- Toby
Don't you remember Jimbo's message in which he said that, because of EoT, he's being very careful about opening packages? Isn't that scary enough for you?
RickK
Nikola Smolenski smolensk@eunet.yu wrote: On Wednesday 15 October 2003 20:00, Poor, Edmund W wrote:
Why can't people who want to mediate, simply do so under their own names? Or just create a dummy account and mediate under that (each with his own dummy account)? I worry that there's some trickery or treachery brewing: EofT is very smart, and he scares me. I don't like or trust what's happening now.
I believe that he is following this list, so you have just told him that you are afraid of him. What is the next thing that you will do for him? :)
_______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
Poor, Edmund W wrote:
The Mediator role account is a danger to the community
There are *NO* "role-accounts" on Wikipedia, and anyone who is using one to masquerade as if they are carrying out some official function is doing something very un-wiki indeed.
We can talk about the idea of role accounts *here* if people are interested in the concept. Maybe it's a good idea. But it must not happen in this way.
Since that account was EofT, 24, etc., it was banned already. It looks like Martin unbanned it, which was a bad idea.
--Jimbo
Jimmy Wales wrote:
There are *NO* "role-accounts" on Wikipedia, and anyone who is using one to masquerade as if they are carrying out some official function is doing something very un-wiki indeed.
Let me add to this for emphasis -- creating new accounts such as "TheMediator" or anything of the sort is something that I will frown on mightily as well. If there's a policy proposal, then it should be proposed and discussed. There is zero need for a special account that would mislead people into thinking that there actually is already some sort of policy of this type.
I think it is *highly* unlikely that the "Mediator role account" is something that could achieve community consensus. It's just a stupid idea proposed by a user who has proven impossible to deal with.
But in any event, there's no need of the account to already exist to pretend to fulfill a role that doesn't exist and probably won't exist.
By all means, though, let's discuss it and find the merits in the proposal.
--Jimbo
The Mediator role account is a danger to the community
I worry intensely about how this "role account" got started, and where it's heading. Although the concept of mediation sounds very nice, please note that the person who conceived of it was banned for extremely anti-social on-line behavior [...]
I believe that we have reached the point where we should be evaluating the idea on its merits alone, rather than on the basis of its source. We have danced around the "good contributions from bad people" conundrum and never reached any sort of consensus, and I don't think it's necessarily important here.
I would also point out, as a brief aside, that EofT's behavior falls short of the criminally threatening behavior that has been ascribed to him. I recall getting this message on my answering machine some years ago from an anonymous caller: "I'm going to blow up your fucking house, man." Literally. Those exact words. Now, that was a little troubling, but the cops didn't follow up on it much and said that they hear about a lot of calls like that. The point being, that the stuff that EofT wrote fell considerably short of that rather more direct message I once received.
There is plenty that 24/142/EofT did that justified a ban. There is no need to exaggerate or make stuff up.
Why can't people who want to mediate, simply do so under their own names?
Well, yes, they can and should. And many do just that.
One of the things I would like to change about the Wikipedia community, if I could, would be to cause there to be greater overall support for those who step in and try to mediate edit wars and other content disputes. Generally, it is a thankless job today. A real tarbaby. You try to help out with some neutral, reasoned involvement, and you tend to get a bunch of gooey tar stuck to yourself and your clothes.
By way of example, I have made a genuine attempt to help out with the RK and JiL matters. I have so far been called a heavy handed, an anti-semite (by RK), and a troll (this last by two separate users). My words have been called unfair. I have been accused of having a hidden agenda. I believe there are about half a dozen contributors who have generally been disparaging in their comments about my activities, and one (Ed Poor) who has been publicly supportive.
I suppose I should learn to have a thick skin and not pay any attention to this sort of thing.
But even if I do, such responses serve to discourage people from mediating or otherwise getting involved in messy conflicts. It scares the well-balanced, sensitive, moderate, rational people away from tough articles.
== Discussion about the mediation process ==
The discussion of mediation and arbitration process reached something of a sequence point a week or two ago when Jimbo asked for nominations and volunteers for these roles. I for one have been waiting to see what happens next before continuing the conversation about mediation/arbitration process.
I continue to believe that the project would be well served by some sort of article dispute resolution process, and that many of our more intractable problem users have become what they are in part out of frustrations with disputes over articles.
Louis