User talk:Mediator/ban

don't ban user:mediator[edit]

Please post positive character witness statements and evidence that user:mediator is not formerly banned users 142.177.etc or EntmootsOfTrolls here. Please do not flame. Thank you for your co-operation.

ban user:mediator[edit]

Please post negative character witness statements and evidence that user:mediator is formerly banned users 142.177.etc or EntmootsOfTrolls here. Please do not flame. Thank you for your co-operation.

Can someone check the user's IP address to see if he/she is in fact posting from a similar address as EntmootofTrolls? If so, then he/she has already been banned, and this ban is indeed justified. RickK 22:20, 13 Oct 2003 (UTC)

My understanding of Jimbo's posts (see user:mediator/ban) was that this was precisely what had been determined from the access logs. Martin 22:31, 13 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Points of order[edit]

Please post procedural issues about the manner of the blocking here. Please do not flame. Thank you for your co-operation.

I see nothing wrong with this manner of dealing with someone who has been disruptive. If someone has transgressed the rules (and even mulitiple times) and are blocked they can always have access to a mediation process through Jimbo or some group of people; they have some means of redress that is not disruptive to other users or their valid discussions on Wikipedia. Everyone here communicates online through email, the mailing lists or through Wikipedia; even a banned user can figure out a way to get through to someone if they are really sincere and are not just playing games. I have offered to help anyone who feels they have been wronged through this stage of their interaction with Wikipedia and function as their advocate, they can contact me through the email link on my user page. I know that Anthere has also voluteered to act in such a manner should any one feel that their voice of dissidence has been quashed by an overwelming negative opinion due to misinterpreted behaviour. We do not need a Mediation Faciliator or Registrar to do that (which is not the same as saying we don't need mediation and it is here that I do not agree with User:NetEsq). My personal opinion is that this was in order as Mediator was creating all kinds of scam user subpages (that appears at least to be implicitly against policy) and was attempting to hijack a discussion that was underway and not resolved. The positive outome is that User:Mediator may have provided valuable data on what a mediator and mediation process is not. — Alex756 23:11, 13 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Although I agree that User:Mediator was being disruptive and working against his own title, I think that one or two of his ideas should be considered -- he's pretty good at designing systems. The user subpages idea with the mediator helping out, as opposed to the rather adversarial "ban" process, and the rotating mediator position, were good ideas in principle.

Perhaps those ideas, regardless of who created them, are worth further discussion along with Jimbo's attempt to create a Mediation force?--User:Steverapaport

Moved

Banned User[edit]

Jimbo said on the mailing list that server logs have confirmed that user:Mediator is a previously-banned user. --Uncle Ed 22:08, 13 Oct 2003 (UTC)

This is outing

Nothing offensive was done from this account. This is therefore the so-called "witchhunt".

Offensiveness has nothing to do with it. You have been banned, and are therfore not to edit here until you have discussed it offline with Jimbo Wales. RickK 23:16, 13 Oct 2003 (UTC)

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 . Thanks.

More comment on this at:

Wikipedia:users in conflict

Wikipedia:votes for deletion

It's quite reasonable to list all "/mediator" spam pages at votes for deletion as soon as they appear. They carry only temporary and generic and time-dependent non-controversial messages.

177.etc

I believe this charade has gone on long enough.

In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, I believe this is thrice-banned User:142.177.etc, User:EntmootsOfTrolls, User:24.150.61.63. This user is not qualified to mediate anything. Based on existing policy regarding banned users, the pages should be deleted with prejudice. Louis Kyu Won Ryu 10:35, 12 Oct 2003 (UTC)

This is speculative nonsense. ☮ Eclecticology 19:48, 2003 Oct 12 (UTC)

"user:mediator" makes copious links, almost entirely to articles created or promoted by EofT and 142. "user:mediator" holds an identical opinion of Jimbo and of many other Wikipedians. "user:mediator" refuses to deny being banned, calling such bans irrelevant. "user:mediator" uses similar terminology and linguistic style. "user:mediator" acts behind a mask of anonymity.

Everyone is of course free to draw whatever conclusions they choose, and act accordingly. Martin 22:24, 12 Oct 2003 (UTC)

neither are you qualified to take decisions for others, just based on assumptions, Louis :-)

I "somehow" look forward for RK to come back, to see how his conflicts with other users will be handled by those opposing any propositions of mediation that people are trying to work on. I hope you would be one of those helping Louis :-) Ach, never mind.

Oh Goody, EoT is back and assing around. At the start the idea sounded good. But the more I read what was written the more I too began to spot EoT's telltale tone, attitude, paranoia, etc. Just how many times does wikipedia have to say 'go away' before EoT gets the message. Or is he simply another DW without the insults? FearÉIREANN 00:52, 13 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I prefer to look at these proposals on their own merits. Unless there is a reasonable chance that it could net me a lottery profit, I don't give a bloody damn about this idle speculation on the identity of the User:Mediator. ☮ Eclecticology 08:27, 2003 Oct 13 (UTC)

from problem users[edit]

Keeps adding subpages to other people's user spaces. Seems to engage only in nonsensical activity as self-appointed "mediator". If anyone needed that, it should have been discussed before. --Wik 20:58, Oct 10, 2003 (UTC)

There were two separate proposals, both of which would require someone to actually get creative and push the solutions without being heavy-handed. The User:Mediator role account will be subject to handoff, and everything it does including User:Mediator/policy priorities and User:Mediator/watchlist is transparent. The creation of "/mediator" subpages is a much less judgemental replacement for the "/ban" subpages that keep this particular page from getting huge - is used only for requests, offers and broadcasting things that matter at a given point in time - so it isn't something a non-role account should be doing, and isn't a precedent the way it would be if a non-role-account was doing it. Discussion at User_talk:Mediator - the incumbent User:Mediator

The irony of this listing is killing me. -- Cyan 21:05, 10 Oct 2003 (UTC)

It is funny but the whole creation of the account seems ironic to me. Wik, this was discussed of sorts on the mailing list, starting from this post I think. Angela 23:30, Oct 10, 2003 (UTC)

I do not believe that User:mediator is among those that Jimbo has chosen for the role, indeed, I don't believe he's made a decision. It does not appear that anyone can confirm that User:mediator has any sort of charter at all, or indeed that sie is a Wikipedian in good standing. Louis Kyu Won Ryu 23:34, 10 Oct 2003 (UTC)

- concur with Louis. Martin 15:10, 11 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Irrelevant, as it will eventually be handed off to one of the User:Mediator/candidates. In the meantime no "charter" or "standing" is required. Wales' opinion is irrelevant as he cannot apply it to all the other language wikipedias, whereas this approach is easily applied to those, with or without his approval. - the incumbent User:Mediator

Just to clarify, when I said it was discussed - I don't mean the actual creation of a mediator account, just the notion of having mediators. Angela 23:39, Oct 10, 2003 (UTC)

I regret to say that I have blocked this account. I am experimentally applying the transgression procedure at wikipedia:bans and blocks. Please discuss the ban at user talk:mediator/ban. Thank you. Martin 22:15, 13 Oct 2003 (UTC)

so, you are a banning sysop again Martin ? :-)