[WikiEN-l] Danger to the community

Wed Oct 15 21:29:25 UTC 2003

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