See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Association_of_Members%27_Advocates
As for having some level of "who polices the policeman" at least on
Wikipedia we already have bureaucrats, checkusers, admins, arbitrators,
oversighters, stewards... So I'm pretty sure we've got the checks and
balances largely sorted out. On mailing lists it is correct there is "only"
the list mods but I think I'm not the only one to believe that the
Foundatio.nl mods are behaving in an exemplary manner in trying
circumstances. Advocating for the creation of a new position of authority
seems to me like "asking the other
parent<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:PARENT#Forum_shopping>
".
-Liam
wittylama.com/blog
Peace, love & metadata
On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 1:06 PM, Chad <innocentkiller(a)gmail.com> wrote:
We had that. They called themselves the
"Association
of Member's Advocates." They were disbanded because
everyone saw them as a huge waste of time with 0 net
benefit.
-Chad
On Nov 26, 2009 8:56 PM, <wjhonson(a)aol.com> wrote:
I already pointed out that you cannot impose "friendliness". Our current
state is one in which any particular admin may sit on any particular editor
with or without adequate cause and that editor has nearly no power to
affect
a hearing. There is no advocate for the editors who are not admins.
Until that situation changes, we cannot claim to be moving toward a
friendly
environment.
What we need is an Office of the Editor Advocate. Any arrested person has
the right to an attorney, provided free of charge by the state. That is
what we need. Advocate-attorneys who are on the side of the arrested
editor.
_______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists...
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l