User talk:Mediator

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)

We all have ideas. Thank you for your support, and, especially, thank you for respecting the need for the User:Mediator to always remain anonymous. You may assist this process by adding your own name to User:Mediator/candidates. Thank you, and feel free to spread the Mediator's mission to others. Eventually we may have a dozen of us to keep thousands of contributors happily cooperating. - the current User:Mediator.

Does anyone want to start a lottery about this? Half of the prodeed to who guesses right, and the other half to the support fund. No comment about it's technical or legal feasibility. :-) ☮ Eclecticology 21:12, 2003 Oct 10 (UTC)

rofl. Sorry, I know it's supposed to be serious, but you do make me laugh. Angela 18:18, Oct 10, 2003 (UTC)

Humour is good. It should be one of the political virtues. - the incumbent User:Mediator.

User:Mediator/spam is not wanted here. I think you should stop creating unsolicited subpages in other people's user spaces. --Wik 19:40, Oct 10, 2003 (UTC)

This practice is confined to the current User:Mediator. There is no reason for any future User:Mediator to use it. Your opinoin is noted. Some issues with abandoning the subpage spam:

It's not easy to track who welcomes such invitations/requests/offers and who does not. So any sanction against User:Mediator for doing so prevents automating its role.

Cluttering existing [[User_talk:]] pages and subpages seems undesirable, especially if the message is not unique and can/should be deleted once it's read. A separate page is thus a lot better.

Proposed solution: push for implementing a one-click "delete this personal subpage" button for all users. Then the message can just be deleted with one click, and no problem - if you agree, add this to User:Mediator/user_interface. Thanks.

I'm not sure yet about where comments on specific aspects belong, but this seems as good a place as any.

I want to support the idea of mediator anonymity. Most of us who have been around for some time can be recognized by users who may then have preconceived notions about where we each stand on certain issues. An anonymous mediator will be able to approach a dispute with a clean(er?) slate. I would like to make a few suggestions in this regard, and in doing so will refer to the present user:mediator as the registrar.

The registrar will choose the mediator for a particular dispute using criteria such as his knowledge about whether that person is himself a participant in the dispute.
The registrar should avoid being a mediator himself
The registrar should assign an ad hoc mediator name to be placed in a mediator namespace. A new name should be generated for each new mediation. Using the random page function in Wiktionary could provide an adequate source of new mediator names. (An unabashed plug for Wiktionary where I tend to do most of my editing!)
A mediator's user name could be used as a first instance password, but since that could be too easily hacked, mediators should be encouraged to change it.
It's conceivable that arbitrators could be chosen from the same list, but each person should indicate his willingness to serve in one or both functions.
An individual could not be both mediator and arbitrator in the same issue.

☮ Eclecticology 21:12, 2003 Oct 10 (UTC)

7. Banned users should not be mediators, arbitrators, or the registrar.

Wales' opinion is irrelevant to mediation. So is that of the sysops. This proposal is to replace them in the mediation function, not to serve as yet another toadying shield for the authority of the mailing list and such. There are no "banned users", only blocked IPs and deleted accounts and ongoing edit wars carried out through many identities. That is in the opinion of - the incumbent User:Mediator.

8. We should ignore this rather unilateral effort and go read Wikipedia:Mediation and Arbitration (proposal).

By all means read it. But in the end, some entity must carry out the decisions of the committee. This account is that entity. - the incumbent User:Mediator.

9. Since when did mediation revolve around feature requests?

It doesn't. But some features make it simpler to carry out. - the incumbent User:Mediator.

In my opinion, of course. Martin 21:24, 10 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Which you are entitled to, wrong though it is - the failure of the competing proposals will hopefully educate you further in what is required to really solve these disputes long term - the incumbent User:Mediator.

Following the Mediator, we can no doubt look forward to the Administrator, the Supervisor, the Counsellor, the Arbitrator, and other authoritatively self-named accounts. To avoid confusion, I would like to make it clear in advance that I am not the Bouncer. -- Derek Ross 23:50, 10 Oct 2003 (UTC)

This is an excellent proposal. By all means, let us create many overlapping Wikipedia:role accounts each with their own strange rules. No doubt the interaction of the different dictionary-defined roles and strange bot-like behaviour of the incumbents in each, will give rise to a wholly new way of managing disputes here - the incumbent User:Mediator.

I am watching you, Mediator, you are not alone anymore! User Advocate

Seems like no one but Ec is taking this seriously. I shot the sheriff!

The alternative is this kind of proposal which is overly weighty - the incumbent User:Mediator.

Did you mean this one? (Alex's original proposal). There is also a summarised version of this.

Your edit at Wikipedia:Problem users was reverted because you seem to have blanked the page.

What an entertaining piece of performance art! I am most heartily amused at your presumptiveness! Self-proclaimed 05:51, 11 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Moi aussi! C'est tres jolie! Soi-disant