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