[WikiEN-l] Re: EofT/142.177.etc/24 back as User:Mediator

Mon Oct 13 23:04:24 UTC 2003

Louis Kyu Won Ryu wrote:

> >Very well, but this sort of checking should have been done in the 
> first >place.  These kind of accusations are all too often completely 
> >speculative.
>
> I was quite sure of my conclusions, and raised the issue first at 
> User_talk:Mediator, where he had an opprotunity to refute it, which he 
> did not.
>
> Beyond that, there was little I could do to check my facts, since I 
> don't have access to the server logs.  What more do you believe I 
> should have done before raising the allegation here?

My apologies for having misjudged what appeared to be 
overenthusistically authoritarian.  

I still stand by what I suggested at my contributions to the various 
"Mediator" articles.  I would still make a distinction between "The 
Mediator" and a mediator perhaps even to the extent of renaming the 
former as "Registrar" to distance ourselves from the unsavory aspects of 
just who User:Mediator really was.  

I believe that there is an answer to your question that can be found in 
the very articles that we are discussing.  The biggest heat from these 
situations arises when there is a public accusation that a contributor 
is a banned user.  The Registrar should have access to the server logs. 
 Thus, when you suspect that this has been happening he can be contacted 
in confidence to check the facts.  At this stage of proceedings his only 
power would be to respond with a simple "yes" or "no".  That would put 
the ball back in your court to decide what, if any, further steps should 
be taken in accordance with established policies.

I happen to feel that a lot of time is wasted debating public 
accusations.  Putting these things before the public demands public 
response, and that almost always will result in a polarized community.

Ec