From: "Poor, Edmund W" Edmund.W.Poor@abc.com Subject: [WikiEN-l] Danger to the community

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

I can only put that in perspective with your reaction to this idea, just a few days ago, Ed

You wrote

:I support this idea wholeheartedly. It is the answer :to my prayers. (I have an idea about who the anonymous :current mediator might be, but "further deponent :sayeth not", heh heh.) --Uncle Ed 14:57, 10 Oct 2003 :(UTC)

I will be frank Ed, in the past 18 months I have been there, I have been terribly trying to open my ears. To all of you. To the cunctator a lot (he was there a lot at that time), to Mav, to Toby, to Ec, to Martin, to Erik, to you, and to many others (don't want to hurt some I did not list); Some are considered very good and trusted members of this

, so are just more neutral. Others are thought bad, if not dangerous.

I care about this, but I mostly care about ideas, and when I read an idea I think hold interest, I am willing to work on it. When I realise, I am alone, or there are some powerful forces against the idea, I usually gave up.

The other day, I read you were interested by the idea. Ec obviously was interested as well. Alex criticized it, but also admitted it was not in antagony with his own proposal.

And several hinted that many points were bad. And I agreed with that.

So, seing that at least 3 persons were interested in pursuing the discussion on this idea (and this is really on an idea), I thought it would be acceptable to go on with this discussion.

I have often problems with lengthy discussions on mailing list, because soon enough, we loose track of others opinions; Perhaps no one ever noticed that I usually rather quickly drop discussions when they get lengthy, because I can't assume looooooog text very well.

I thought it was best to go on discussing the matter on wikipedia. Also, it is written no where that discussion over meta option should ONLY happen on this mailing list. Quite many discussions only occur on wikipedia itself, and no one seems to complain about that.

I can't help putting in perspective what you wrote the idea day, and this so hurting mail and comment from you here.

I am not very good at that, but I tend to like mediating. When I proposed myself to Jimbo some two weeks ago, mostly in case of issues with non-english speakers (because I remember how good it was when some people soothed me talking to me in french when I was in conflict with RK), he did not dismissed me. Or so I thought.

But usually I prefer mediating ideas rather than people.

Today, I took most of the afternoon, not to mediate between people, but to start mediation over ideas. I thought that if there were two concepts, and at least a minimum of people declaring themselves interested in both concept, it might be beneficial by at least those interested to remove all what was clearly controversial in the idea, to clarify where the two concepts were meeting, and where they were being different. I had no idea this could be so scarry to you, just discussing, removing the bad points, putting in light the good one, not even as a proposition, but just as a clean-up.

In short, you mention how much heartache EoT has caused in the past. Do you have any idea of how much heartache you caused me today ? Because, if I did this, it was because YOU, EC and perhaps Alex, are thinking of options. It was for you. As I indicated both on the account today, and to Martin yesterday, I intended it to be my last participation over meta topic on en. Last it indeed is.

------------------------------

Message: 3 Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2003 11:30:46 -0700 From: Jimmy Wales jwales@bomis.com Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Danger to the community To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Message-ID: 20031015183046.GH31966@joey.bomis.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

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.

At the top of that page is written

:Note: this user is not any kind of "official" :Wikipedia mediator - The account currently exists to :support a proposition to improve mediation on :Wikipedia

It is clearly labelled as being a proposition, a place for discussion. It is clearly labelled that this is not official in the least. Pretending otherwise is disingenous; I left that note clearly in evidence. No one could miss it.

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.

When the account was banned, it was very clearly said on this very list that the reason why it was banned was because of who was using it. It was written no where the user account was banned for making threats, insulting people, making pov statement in articles. It was not even a vandale. This account made nothing to hurt wikipedia, and nowhere in the rules of Wikipedia is there one that may justify the banning of this account in itself. Apparently, the rules changed, and the reason given when the account was blocked was false. The reason is given nowhere in the current rules. I am afraid this set a precedent which will have to be noted. In any case, it was not noted in the rules this afternoon, so if it was not a rule at that moment, I did not break any rule

It looks like Martin unbanned it, which was a bad

idea.

Martin certainly did not. I did. I explained it in length on the user account page. And Martin read my justifications and thought them valid enough not to ban again the account. He could have. He could have told me he thought it wrong, but he did not. I would probably had stop if he had. But do not accuse him of anything.

The only user who complained when I was around was Rick. That is, he complained by reverting a page, then did nothing more.

I explained in length on the user page, why I thought the account could be unblocked, basing myself on the reason that was given for the block, which was not relevant any more.

I will copy below what I wrote them. (It was reworked by Martin later, and that was sign for me what I was doing was admittable).

You may find this edit in the history

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User:Mediator&diff=1568875&am...

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.

As I already said, this can't currently mislead anyone. I edited only the user page and subpages, and it is clearly labelled at the top it was a proposition to discuss.

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.

In the real life, where I work, we work essentially with decision making per consensus. One of the key thing we were told, is that during the first phase of a discussion, brainstorming, any idea, even the craziest, should be given. Because even if crazy, they might enlighten other people, and lead to another idea, this one being great

Somehow, giving "stupid" ideas is highly regarded :-) At least, at the end of the year, when salary raises are discussed, it is better you are remembered for crazy ideas, that no ideas at all.

I thrive on crazy ideas. I listen to people, anyone, and try to see what is good, and what is not. Just as on Wikipedia, I learn devil advocate from The Cunctator, consensual behavior from Mav, wise comments from Ec, juridical comments from Alex, fallacies by...oh, so many people, professionalism from Erik, warmth from KQ, fun from many I learned a lot. And I also learn from bad people as well. Because, even though bad, no one is entirely bad. There is good to take in any person. Sometimes, it is not what is required at the very moment, but no one should assume that a difficult user is just one that is 100% bad, just as the perfect user is never 100% good. Which is why several of the trusted users around here, sometimes make mistakes. That is no big deal.

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.

We do not know that for sure. And that is no way to think within a consensus process.

By all means, though, let's discuss it and find the merits in the proposal.

--Jimbo

Jimbo I am sure of one thing, because I trust you to be a very careful person. I am sure that before banning someone, you carefully assess why you are banning this person. I am sure that you review the pages written by this person, in order to distinguish what you were told in the mailing list. I know this is also why it sometimes take you a long time to take a final decision. Because not being on wikipedia all the time, you can't take a decision just over a couple of comments on the mailing list; Of course, you have to go and see the extent of the problem

So, for this reason, I know you have read what was written today by User:Mediator, and obviously, you have read as well the comment left at the top of the user page, to justify the unbloking, to explain what was gonna happen, the clearing of the controversial stuff, the removal of what was purely associated to the EoT, then the intent to hand over the password to those who had said they were interested by thinking on the matter.

It can't then have escaped you that I wrote all that. It can't have escape you that it was not EoT writing.

I especially wrote

I am not banned, have never abused anyone, nor being offensive at an unreasonable level, never threatened anyone afaik. I don't think I need to prove I am not 142. You know who I am; my poor language skills should be enough; if necessary, I can make an anonymous edit per request to show my ip (leading to a middle-size french city :-); or any developper can check of course. If it is still necessary, I will email Jimbo :-)

And Martin indicated my name if that was not enough.

At the top of the page, you put a lign. You wrote

Note: this account is blocked again, and should not be unblocked. Any discussion or debate about the concept of a role account should take place in the proper forum, the wikien-l mailing list. We do not set policy by unilateral assertion, particularly not by unilateral anonymous assertion by a banned account. Jimbo Wales 18:37, 15 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I especially notice the "particularly not by unilateral anonymous assertion by a banned account".

So, I understand that my additions, the ones that justified the blocking of this account today, are said to be ones made by a banned account.

That is me. The banned account now. My assertions were not anonymous. They were not unilateral. And this afternoon, they were not by a banned user. The notice makes reference to the current edits, so that is me.

I dont know policies very well, but there is one I am aware of, the fact a banned user, should not edit under other accounts. I saw that rule inforced enough times.

Since I am someone who tend to obey rules, I will of course comply. So, I will not edit wikipedia any more from now on. I dearly hope that at least one user will ask upon what motive I was banned, and that Martin will update the policy pages upon banning accordingly.

I have talked to you privately enough to have the weakness to believe that as a kindness, you will not revert my user page to place a ban notice on it. Many people know my user name, and I would feel quite humiliated.

Well, I would lie if I did not admitted I feel terribly humiliated right now. I am thinking of the huge number of hours I spent on wikipedia in the past 18th months (really huge, but perhaps english users do not realise that), and I would have thought I would be granted good faith at least. Even if you disagreed with me editing that page, you could have just told me on the talk page to stop, and I would have complied (or discussed). I thought you knew me enough not to think I would go on if you ask me to really stop. Hard is the fall.

I hope this example of you banning me will be enlightening for those who think there is no need for more mediation between people on wikipedia. Somehow, I think the biggest issue between people, not only Wikipedia, is the lack of discussion, lack of understanding. I tried this afternoon to stimulate discussion, I am here trying to explain to you again, that I was acting in good faith, because the account had been said blocked only because it was edited by a banned user, not for any other reason.

You did not take the time to discuss with me, you did not even take the time to put a word on the talk page. I supposed you had no time, you thought it unecessary, it was easier that way.

I will copy one paragraph I wrote on that page today

...the worst problem at Wikipedia is that more and more banning seems to be occuring, which could be interpretated in several ways : perhaps more traffic is bringing more vandals and difficult users. However, it seems as well, that more and more people are just banned because some think it the quickest, easiest, less painful, or more reliable way to deal with problematic users. This could also a sign of less tolerance, less willingness to work out issues, lesser capacity of listening to what others have to say, and less desire to help Wikipedia:users in conflict solve them through discussion.

So true I was, when you prove my point about 3 hours later.

------

I should probably shut up now. I remember that banned users are asked to make their case of the list. So here is mine. I need no private mediation for that. Neither anonymous. I always told you with my heart open what I thought. Just as Ed, I do not think you can perceive the pain you are giving tonight. I do not think so. And for Erik, who will not miss saying I am doing an appeal to pity, no, I am just honest. And terribly disheartened.

The last thing I will say is, I intend to go on editing the french wikipedia. I do not think french wikipedians would support my banning. If you think the opposite, at least ask and respect their opinion. Please.

__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search http://shopping.yahoo.com